
k ^ ibb 






V 



Ill 



A Two Days' Debate 



THE ATONEMENT, 



BETWEEN 



ELDER LEMUEL POTTER, 

Of Cvnthiana, Ind,, of the Regular Baptist Church, 

AND 

ELDER THOMAS W. DICKEY, 

Of Castor, 111., of the Missionary Baptist Church, 

HELD AT THE 

LILLY MEETING HOUSE, 

In Wayne County, III., 
On the 19th and 20th Days of April, 1887. 



STENOGRAPHED by 

MISS LAURA POTTER, 
Cynthiana, Ind. 



ALL BIGHTS RESER VED. 



J 4 29 1887 




Courier Co., Printers and Binders, 
bvansville, ind. 



31 ■&£ 



Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1887, by 

ELDER LEMUEL POTTER, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C. 



The Library 
of Congress 







(*] 

PREFACE. 
? — 

/^HE subject of the atonement of Jesus Christ, 
V.y which is the foundation of the hope of Christ- 
ians, has been, in this country, a subject of some 
controversy among the people, and as the parties 
who are the contestants in the following pages felt 
• so great an interest in the investigation of the ques- 
tion, they have concluded to jointly discuss the mat- 
ter, and thus exchange views, and give their argu- 
ments to the reading public. 

Each disputant has given what he sincerely and 
candidly believes to be the teachings of God's Holy 
Word ; so that the reader will find their conscien- 
tious convictions of this momentous question in this 
little work, as far as the disputants could give them, 
in so small a space. Hoping that this little volume 
will do no dishonor to the cause of truth, but that it 
may be the means of comforting and instructing, at 
least some of the dear household of faith, it is now- 
submitted to you for your perusal. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 



/^HE time for the discussion to begin having ar- 
V~>J rived, and a large concourse of people having as- 
sembled, the proposition was read by the President- 
Moderator as follows : 

"The scriptures teach that, on the cross, Jesus 
Christ made a complete atonement for the elect 
exclusively." 

This proposition was affirmed by Mr. Potter, and 
denied by Mr. Dickey. 

Mr. Potter arose and led as follows: 



CHAPTER I. 



MR. POTTER S FIRST SPEECH. 

Brethren, .Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
^HE importance of the present occasion calls for 
V^J the candid and prayerful attention of every one 
here who desires to know the truth. The magnitude 
of the question to be discussed is of such moment 
that it is equally interesting to all Christians, from 
the very fact that the important question to be dis- 



6 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

cussed, on this occasion, to-wit : The atonement 
is the basis of the' whole Christian structure. With- 
out the atonement there is no salvation for any fallen 
sinner. The subject of the atonement has engaged 
the minds of the greatest talent the Church has ever 
produced ; and my personal interest on that subject 
makes me solicitous to investigate the matter in 
order that I may attain to the truth. I presume I 
am talking to a Christian people to-day, who are as 
anxious to know the truth as myself, and who will 
respect the question, as well as the speakers, with all 
that respect that we are worthy of. I presume that 
my opponent and his brethren are as eager to know 
the truth, and will as candidly receive it, when pre- 
sented in the light of the Scriptures and in the light 
of reason, as myself and my brethren. In fact, I 
deem the people here to be as candid and honest in 
search of the truth as I claim to be. I am to affirm 
the following proposition : 

The Scriptures teach that, on the cross, Jesus 
Christ made a complete atonement for the elect only. 
Definitions: By the term " Scriptures,''' I mean the 
Bible, or the Old and New Testaments. By the 
phrase, " on the cross," I mean the sufferings of 
Christ. That when Christ suffered he made the 
atonement. That when his sufferings were ended 
on the cross the atonement was then and there com- 
pleted. When I say " Jesus Christ," I mean the Son 
of God, that was born of the Virgin Mary, in Beth- 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 7 

lehem of Judea, and who was finally put to death on 
the cross. By the term " atonement," I mean satis- 
faction for sin, or expiation of guilt ; and by the 
word "complete," I mean whole, full or perfect. By 
the term " elect," I mean those whom God, the 
Father, had chosen before the foundation of the 
world to eternal salvation. By the term "exclu- 
sively," I mean only or none but the elect. Having 
now defined the terms of my proposition, I will di- 
vide it in three parts, as there are three fundamental 
points in it to be discussed. First, that the atone- 
ment was made on the cross. Secondly, that it was 
made for the elect, and thirdly, that it was not for 
others. One reason why I divide it into these three 
points is from the fact that the first and third will be 
points upon which we will differ in this discussion. 
My worthy opponent denies that there was any 
atonement made on the cross, while I affirm that 
there was. I affirm that that was where the atone- 
ment was made; that if it was not made on the cross 
it was not made at all. To that special point I wish 
to devote a few arguments in the present speech, and 
my opponent may remember that I am not, in these 
arguments, talking about the elect or the non-elect, 
but the point now is, whether the atonement was 
made on the cross or not. My first argument is 
based on the meaning of the word reconcile, as we 
find it used in the New Testament Scriptures. 



8 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Romans v., 10-11 : " For if, when we were ene- 
mies, we were reconciled to God by the death of 
His Son ; much more, being reconciled, we shall be 
saved by his life. 

"And not only so, but we also joy in God through 
our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now re- 
ceived the atonement." 

The word atonement occurs in this quotation the 
only time that it is used in our authorized version of 
the New Testament Scriptures. This word atone- 
ment is translated in some of the English translations, 
reconciliation. I am going to claim that that is 
what it is. That atonement and reconciliation are 
the same thing. 

You who have marginal Bibles will [find that the 
margin thus explains it, reconciliation. Also, in the 
revised version of the New Testament, it reads: 
" But we also rejoice in God, through our Lord 
Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received 
reconciliation." 

I do not say that the word should not be translated 
atonement. I believe that atonement is proper, but 
it is evident from the fact that it is translated atone- 
ment in this case and reconciliation in other cases, 
that atonement and reconciliation have the same 
meaning. 

Another reason for believing that atonement 
means reconciliation, is that the word atonement is 
translated from the same word that reconciled is in 
the 10th verse. Also, from the same word that re- 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 9 

conciliation is translated in Second Corinthians v., 
18, 19, 20. 

(18.) "And all things are of God, who hath re- 
conciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ, and hath 
given to us the ministry of reconciliation. " 

(19.) " To-wit: that God was in Christ, reconcil- 
ing the world unto himself, not imputing their tres- 
passes unto them ; and hath committed unto us the 
word of reconciliation. " 

(20.) " Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, 
as though God did beseech you by us ; we pray you in 
Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." 

We here have the word reconciliation twice trans- 
lated from the same word that atonement is in 
Romans v, 11. Without taking up much time on 
the definition of the word atonement, or the defini- 
nitiori of the word reconciliation, I wish to claim 
that the expression that says: "By whom we have 
now received atonement/' must mean " by whom we 
have now received reconciliation." 

Thus the apostle's language means about this: "For 
if, when we were enemies we were reconciled to God 
by the death of His Son much more being recon- 
ciled, we shall be saved by his life." Now, remem- 
ber that we were reconciled by His death. This 
reconciliation then was made on the cross, because 
it was made by his death. He died on the cross. 
It is hardly necessary for me to argue that the Savior 
died on the cross. This would not be disputed, even 



10 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

between myself and ray opponent. Now, if he died 
on the cross, and we were reconciled to God by his 
death, then reconciliation was made on the cross. 
Hence, the apostle says to his Roman brethren : 
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through 
our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received 
the atonement." We have now received the recon- 
ciliation that Christ made on the cross. My under- 
standing of this is that when a man is converted to 
God, and becomes a believer in the Lord Jesus 
Christ, that he receives the benefits of the atonement 
that was made on the cross. It cannot be gain 
said that Christ did make a reconciliation by his 
death. I call my opponent's special attention to 
this word reconciliation. If we were not reconciled 
to God by the death of Christ, I wish him to show 
that we wire not; and if reconciliation does not 
mean atonement, in that verse, I wish him to prove 
that it does not. Unless he does, I shall take it for 
granted that he has given this point up, and if he 
gives this point up by passing my arguments by in 
silence, I shall conclude that the first part of my ar- 
gument is proven — that is, that the atonement was 
made on the cross. 

I now wish to notice that same word reconciled in 
another text. Hebrews ii., 17. 

" Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be 
made like unto his brethren, that he might be a 
merciful and faithful High Priest, in things per- 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 11 

taining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of 
the people. " 

Reconciliation here is used in the sense of expia- 
tion or propitiation. The Revised Version has its 
propitiation, and the Emphatic Diaglott has it that 
he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest as 
to things relating to God in order to expiate the sins 
of the people. " 

Hence, to make reconciliation for the sins of the 
people is to make propitiation, or to expiate their 
sins. To expiate sins means to extinguish guilt, 
that is the definition of the word expiate. Hence, it 
is evident from the best authorities we have, that he 
made an atonement for the sins of the people, as is rep- 
resented in that verse. Now, as to whether he did 
it on the cross, we will see. The 18th verse says: 
"For in that He himself hath suffered, being tempt- 
ed, He is able to succor them that are tempted. " 

From this we learn that it was in His sufferings 
that He made reconciliation for the sins of His peo- 
ple. If it was in His sufferings, it was on the cross, 
and by His sufferings He atoned for the sins of His 
people. I shall expect some notice to be given to 
this text. I claim that the Apostle here alludes es- 
pecially to the sufferings of Christ, as it was that 
that made reconciliation for the sins of His people. 
Now, if I am not correct in my arguments on the use 
of the word reconcile and reconciliation, I wish to 
know it. I will make my second argument upon the 



12 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

first chapter of Hebrews, 3d verse: "Who, being 
the brightness of His glory, and the express image of 
His person, and upholding all things by the word of 
His power, when He had by Himself purged our 
sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on 
high." 

From this text it is evident that He had purged 
our sins before He ascended to Heaven. If 
He had purged our sins it was by making atonement 
for them ; making satisfaction for them. We are led 
to conclude from this text, that He purged our sins 
by His atonement which graciously covers our sins, 
and that He did this in His death. 

Now, I want it distinctly understood, that I am 
arguing that He made an atonement for sin upon 
the cross. I now propose to notice more accurately 
and definitely the meaning of the word atonement ; 
and one reason why I feel a desire to be very par- 
ticular in the investigation of this subject, is because 
so many people seem, through their ministry, to, in a 
great measure, ignore tbe atonement made by the 
suffering Son of God, and perhaps we would all be 
better able to come to a conclusion definitely, upon 
the subject of the atonement. 

We should first learn precisely the full meaning of 
the word atonement. Atonement means expiation, 
satisfaction, or reparation made by giving the equiva- 
lent for an injury, or by doing or suffering that which 
is received in satisfaction for an offense or an injury. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 13 

Now, this is the definition of the word atonement. 
If atonement means expiation, or if it means satis- 
faction or reparation made by giving the equivalent 
for an injury, and Jesus Christ, if he made an atone- 
ment at all, when could He have given an equivalent 
for an injury for His people if he did not atone by 
filling the law ? When could He have met the de- 
mands of that law ? When could He have made 
satisfaction to it for sin, except on the cross ? At 
what particular time did Jesus Christ make an atone- 
ment if He did not make it on the cross ? 

Now, if we agree with our best Lexicographers, 
that atonement is expiation, satisfaction or repara- 
tion made by giving an equivalent for an injury, or 
by doing or suffering that which is received in satis- 
faction for an offense or an injury, I claim that 
Jesus Christ did that on the cross. 

Atonement means, in addition to that, to expiate, 
or to extinguish guilt by suffering the penalty which 
is equivalent, or to make satisfaction or reparation 
for, as to expiate a crime. In order to see what 
positions have been taken I will here state that I 
am satisfied that a great many people have found 
fault with the doctrine of a limited atonement be- 
cause they said it represented God as being unjust. 
Almost all the religions claim to believe in a univer- 
ral atonement, but when we come to examine their 
position and arguments upon that side, it is very 
clear they do not believe in a universal atonement; 



14 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

from the very fact that atonement means satisfac- 
tion. There is only one document that I know of 
in this country setting forth the faith of any denom- 
ination, that expresses a universal atonement, and 
that is set forth in the Confession of Faith in the M. 
E. Church, in which they say, "The sacrifice of 
Christ once offered is that perfect redemption, pro- 
pitiation and satisfaction for all the sins of the 
whole world, both original and actual, and there is 
none other satisfaction for sin but that alone." 

This is the doctrine set forth in the Confession 
of Faith, and you will bear in mind this article does 
not teach us that the suffering of Christ is a partial 
redemption or a partial satisfaction or a partial pro- 
pitiation for sins, but a perfect redemption, etc., not 
for a part of the sins of all the world .of mankind, 
nor of the sins of a part of mankind, but for all the* 
sins of the whole world, both orignal and actual. 
This is expressive of a universal atonement. Noth- 
ing short of it is. But, Irefer to this, not so much for 
the benefit of my opponent, as I do for the people 
who are here to-day ; only to place in the mind what 
universal atonement is. 

Now, instead of these people believing in univer- 
sal atonement, as this article teaches, they believe 
in no atonement at all. Instead of saying that 
Jesus Christ made satisfaction for the sins of all the 
race or even a part of them on the cross, the major- 
ity of the ministers to day of all the denominations 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 15 

simply state that Christ made salvation possible for 
all the race. 1 am here to affirm that he made an 
atonement, and if he made an atonement for all the 
race, he made satisfaction for all the sins of all the 
race. If he made an atonement for a portion of 
the race, he made satisfaction for their sins, for that 
is what atonement is — satisfaction to the law for sin, 
and that is what I am here to argue, that Jesus Christ 
made, when he was on the cross, satisfaction for sin. 
In order to prove that, I refer to Isaiah, liii., 5, 
which reads : " But he was wounded for our trans- 
gressions, he was bruised for our iniquities ; the 
chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with 
his stripes we are healed." 

Now we argue from this text that he was wounded 
for our transgressions. If he was wounded for our 
transgressions, he must have been suffering for our 
transgressions, and he made an atonement by his 
sufferings, or else his sufferings were not a satisfac- 
tion for sin, and I wish to impress upon the mind 
this question : Why did he suffer for sins if his suf- 
ferings were not an atonement ? If the law de- 
manded punishment for sin, which it evidently did, 
and Jesus Christ suffered for sins, he certainly met 
the demands of the law. If he met the demands of 
the law he satified the law, and if he satisfied the 
law, he atoned for sin. If he atoned for sin in his 
suffering, he did this on the cross, and the prophet 
speaks of his suffering for our transgressions, when 
he says he was wounded for our transgressions. 



16 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

That is what he was wounded for ; that he was 
mangled for on the cross, was for our transgressions. 
He was bruised for our iniquites. 

That is what he suffered on the cross for. Noth- 
ing but our sins caused him to suffer on the cross. 
Now the only way for my opponent to escape the 
position that he made an atonement on the cross, 
is for him to show us that this suffering on the cross 
did not satisfy for sin, alchough he suffered for 
sin, yet it did not satisfy for sin, for atonement 
was not made on the cross. I want this distinctly 
borne in mind that his suffering was for sin, and 
I would love for this especial text to be borne in 
mind, and that it was by his stripes we are healed, 
not by something else, but by his stripes. When 
did he receive his stripes ? in his suffering. That 
is the only answer that can be successfully given 
to that question. It was by his stripes we were 
healed. If it were by his stripes we are healed, 
that healing was made on the cross. I now call 
attention to 1 Peter, iii., 18, which reads: " For 
Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for 
the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put 
to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. " 

This text informs us that the suffering of Christ 
was for sins. If He suffered for sin He must have 
suffered the penalty of the law; if He suffered the 
penalty of the law, he must have made an atonement. 
If he did not make an atonement by his suffering, 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 17 

then he did not suffer the penalty of the law ; if He 
did not suffer the penalty of the law, for our sins, it 
is evident we will be called upon to pay that penalty 
ourselves. The only way we can hope for escaping 
God's just and holy law, for our own sins, is that 
Jesus Christ himself suffered for them in our behalf. 

The Apostle Peter says He did. If He suffered,, 
then He made an atonement when He suffered on the 
cross. So He did. suffer then, for sins. What did 
He suffer for ? To satisfy the law. No other an- 
swer can be given to that question. I will leave that 
question for my opponent to answer when he replies. 
Did Christ suffer for sins in order to meet the de- 
mand of the law ? I claim that He did. If he 
admits it, he admits this part of my proposition, that 
the atonement was made on the cross. 

Hence, it occurs to me now, that I have introduced 
enough Scriptures for this time to prove the fact 
that the atonement was made on the cross. For 
that purpose he suffered and made reconciliation for 
the sins of the people. That was to expiate their 
guilt. I next quote, in proof of my proposition. 
Hebrews ix, 26 : '" For then must He often have- 
suffered since the foundation of the world; but now 
once in the en I of the world hath He appeared to- 
put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." 

If there is no difference between His sacrifice 
and His atonement, it will be borne in mind by all 

2 



18 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

that He was the sacrifice that put away sin. If the 
sacrifice put away sin and yet did not atone for sin, 
then atonement is not necessary to the putting away 
of sin. If the sacrifice put away sin, and an atone- 
ment is necessary to the putting away of sin, then 
when He made a sacrifice of Himself, He made an 
atonement. 

If He made an atonement when He sacrificed 
Himself for sin, then He made an atonement on the 
cross. To say that He put away sin by the sacrifice 
of Himself, and that that sacrifice was made on the 
cross, and then say that there was no atonement 
made on the cross, is to argue that there was no 
atonement necessary to put away sin. I would love 
to know the object of His making the sacrifice, if it 
was not to atone for sin. I also would love to know 
when the atonement was made for sin if it was not 
made when He made a sacrifice of Himself for sin. 
If it was not made then, and the sacrifice of Him- 
self put sin away, an atonement is not afterwards 
made for sin, from the fact that sin was put away be- 
fore the atonement was made, if the atonement was 
made after the sacrifice was offered. 

The putting away of sin is what the atonement is 
for. There can be no other use of it, and I 
have already defined that word, and it is evident 
and cannot be denied, that this text teaches that the 
sacrifice did put away sin. Hence, as the sacrifice 
was made on the^cross, so the atonemenMvas*made 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 19 

on the cross, and this part of my proposition is sus- 
tained beyond any reasonable contradiction. I call 
the special attention of my worthy opponent to this 
text, and I wish him to give it a careful examination 
in his reply to me ; and if the sacrifice put away sin 
and there was no atonement made for sin, let him 
show that that is true. 

When sin is put away it does not remain where it 
was before, and He put it away by the sacrifice of 
Himself. I now call" attention to one more text, 
Daniel ix., 24. It reads as follows: " Seventy 
weeks are determined upon Thy people and upon 
Thy holy city to finish the transgression and to make 
an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for 
iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, 
and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to 
anoint the Most Holy." 

This text undoubtedly has allusion to the giving 
of Christ. The " Most Holy " mentioned in the 
text is none other than the Son of God. And now, 
what is He to do when He is annointed ? He is to 
finish the transgression and make an end of sin. If 
He makes an end of sin it must necessarily be that 
He atones for sins, and He makes a reconciliation 
for iniquities, according to this text. We have al- 
ready shown that reconciliation for sins must be 
atonement for sins. 

Hence the prophet here describes Christ as mak- 
ing atonement for iniquities, and as a result of that 



20 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

atonement He brings in everlasting righteousness. 
To make an end of sin is equivalent to putting away 
sins. And He puts away sins by the sacrifice of 
Himself, as we have already observed. Hence He 
made an end of sin by the sacrifice of Himself. The 
only way to make an end of sin is to atone for it by 
suffering the penalty of the law. This. I think, I 
have abundantly proven. Jesus Christ did on the 
cross. 

I hope now that my arguments will be noticed and 
that the reply to this speech will be confined to the 
part of the proposition that I have now labored to 
sustain, that the atonement was made on the cross. 
I will give one more text, Hebrews ix., 27, 28 ■ 
" And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but 
after this the judgment. 

II So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of 
many; and unto them that look for Him shall He 
appear the second time without sin unto salvation. " 

This text teaches us that Christ was offered. And 
if He was once offered, He was offered for a pur- 
pose, and that purpose was to bear the sins of many. 
When did He bear the sins ? Evidently, when He 
offered. He was offered on the cross, then He 
bore the sins on the cross, as the Apostle Peter has 
already shown. 

If He bore our sins on the cross, and yet did not 
atone for them, I would love to know during this 
discussion, for what purpose He bore them. I hope 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 21 

we will have more light on this subject ere this dis- 
cussion closes. If my opponent will take up my 
line of arguing and reasoning and show the people 
that I am mistaken — as he undoubtedly thinks I must 
be, or he would not be here to negative the proposi- 
tion as he is at this time, I hope he will notice the 
use of the word reconciliation, that I made in the 
first argument I presented, that it is used in the 
sense of atonement, and is translated as reconcilia- 
tion. 

Now these arguments I rely upon. I want it dis- 
tinctly understood that reconciliation and atonement 
mean the same thing ; and that reconciliation was 
certainly made on the cross, for the Bible never 
mentions it as having been made anywhere else. 

[Tijvie Out.] 



CHAPTER II. 



MR. DICKEY S FIRST SPEECH. 

Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I am glad to have the opportunity of addressing 
so large an audience as I see present here to-day. I 
think it argues well for our country, to see at this 
busy season of the year, so many lay aside for the 
present, the common vocations of life, and come out 
to the house of God to hear the Scriptures investi- 
gated. 

I believe in investigating the Scriptures, and I am 
glad that the people of this section" of the country 
are disposed to give the time and attention neces- 
sary to a proper understanding of the important 
subject of the atonement. Without a proper under- 
standing of this subject we are unable to draw cor- 
rect conclusions in regard to much of the teachings 
of inspiration as presented in the Gospel for our in- 
formation and benefit. 



24 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

I engage in this discussion, with love for all, 
without enmity in my heart against any one. My 
only object being that we may investigate the Script- 
ure, and learn the truth. 

If Brother Potter presents the truth as revealed 
in the Word of God, accept it, and practice it in 
your lives. But, if he presents error instead of truth, 
reject it, and refuse to be led by it. I ask only the 
same consideration for myself. If I am successful 
in presenting to you the truth, accept and practice 
it, if not reject it. I will now call your attention to 
some of the passages and arguments presented by 
Elder Potter. 

In the first place I will remark that we agree in 
regard to the meaning of the word atonement. Elder 
Potter defines the word atonement to mean reconcilia- 
tion. I admit that to be the correct definition of 
the word. His first quotation, I believe, is from 
Rom. v., 10: " For if, when we-were enemies, we 
were reconciled to God by the death of His Son ; 
much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by 
His life." 

The Elder founds an argument on this passage to 
prove that the atonement was made on the cross. In 
criticism of this argument I will call attention to the 
fact that the Apostle Paul does not say reconcilia- 
tion was accomplished while, or during the time 
Jesus Christ died on the cross. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 25 

Mark the expression of the language of the Apos- 
tle : " For if, when we were enemies, we were recon- 
ciled to God by the death of His Son." If reconcilia- 
tion, or the atonement, was made by Jesus Christ on 
the cross, enmity existed in the minds of those for 
whom it was made at that time. There was no en- 
mity in the minds of the unborn millions, who have 
lived since the death of Christ on the cross. No 
one of this congregation had enmity in his heart 
against God at the time Christ died on the cross. 
We were not in existence then, therefore we could 
not have had enmity against God. The Apostle 
represents that it was when he and they to whom he 
was writing were enemies that they were reconciled to 
God by -the death of His Son. 

If reconciliation* is effected between an individual 
and God it must be after enmity has existed, and 
during the existence of the individual, and not before 
the individual has lived. If the atonement or re- 
conciliation was made on the cross by the death of 
Jesus Christ, then the millions who had lived before 
the death of Christ, had all been sent to hell, or 
they were saved without an atonement or reconcilia 
tion being made between them and God, living with 
Him in heaven unreconciled. 

The Elder was unfortunate in the selection of this 
passage. The Elder turns next to 2 Cor. v., 18 : 
"And all things are of God, Who hath reconciled 
us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us 
the ministry of reconciliation." 



26 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

The Apostle refers to himself and his Corinthian 
brethren being reconciled to God by Jesus Christ ; 
he also refers to the means by which reconciliation 
is effected, Jesus Christ is the means. He says noth- 
ing about being reconciled while Jesus was on the 
cross. But we may learn when reconciliation takes 
place, and that it is not on the cross, by reading 
Rom. v., 11 : " And not only so, but we also joy in 
God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we 
have now received the atonement" Also read what the 
Apostle Paul says to his Colossian brethren, Col. i., 
21 : " And you, that were sometimes alienated and 
enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath 
He reconciled" 

This shows that alienation, enmity and wicked 
works preceded reconcilation, arid that reconcilia- 
tion was made while the parties that were recon- 
ciled were living, conscious, intelligent beings, that 
they were not reconciled at the time Christ died on 
the cross. How were they reconciled ? Col. i., 22 : 
u In the body of His flesh through death, to present 
you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in His 
sight." 

It is through the manifestation of the attributes of 
the Father, by the incarnation of Jesus Christ in 
human nature and flesh, his love, mercy and justice 
being conspicuously displayed in the death of His 
Son, that being unfolded in the Gospel, leads men 
to forsake sin, turn to God, and loyally accept His 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 27 

government, and through Jesus Christ become recon- 
ciled unto God. " And hath given to us the minis- 
try of reconciliation." 

The Apostle declares that God hath given to us 
(the people of God) the ministry of reconciliation. 
If reconciliation was made by Jesus Christ when he 
died on the cross, for the elect, or for the race, as 
the case might be, then the ministry of reconcilia. 
tion would have been completed, the work finished 
in regard to reconciliation, and there would have 
been no ministry of reconciliation to have given into the 
hands of His people. This is another rather unfor- 
tunate selection to prove his position. The Elder 
selects again as proof for his argument. Heb. 
ii., 17: "Wherefore in all things it behoved 
Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He 
might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things 
pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the 
sins of the people." 

To make is a verb in the infinitive mood, and ex- 
presses an action unfinished and incomplete. At 
the time the Apostle wrote this letter to the He- 
brews, about A. D. 64, over thirty years after the 
death of Jesus Christ on the cross, the Apostle uses 
this language: "To make reconciliation," the 
Apostle says, "it behooves Him to be made like 
unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and 
faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to 
make reconciliation for the sins of the people." 



28 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

In the first place, it was necessary for Him to be 
made like unto His brethren. In the second place, 
that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest. 
In the third place, to rnake reconciliation, Christ is now 
filling the position of high priest. Heb. vii., 26 : "For 
such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, 
undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher 
than the heavens." 

The Apostle here refers to the priestship of Jesus 
Christ in heaven. Heb. vii., 25: " Wherefore he is 
able also to save them to the uttermost that come 
unto God by Him seeing He ever liveth to make in- 
tercessions for them.'* 

Not that he has saved, but that he is able to save 
them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, 
seeing he ever liveth to make intercessions for them. 
He liveth then in heaven to make intercession for 
them that come unto God by Him, that they may be 
reconciled unto God. 

The Elder again calls our attention to Heb. i., 3 : 
" Who, being the brightness of His glory and the ex- 
press image of his person, and upholding all things 
by the word of His power, when He had by Himself 
purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the 
Majesty on high." This quotation I understood to 
be made to prove that Jesus Christ purged or 
cleansed, or purified the sins of the elect on the 
cross. If the Elder will look, he will find that the 
pronoun our is not in the Greek text ; " having made a 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 29 

purification for sins ," is the reading in the Emphatic 
Diaglott. He will also notice this letter was written; 
to the Hebrews by the Apostle Paul, not to a church; 
and to emphasize the word sins, would be to say Je- 
sus had purged the sins of the Hebrews, all the 
wicked people of that nation, and therefore all the 
Jews would be saved. This would prove too much 
for the Elder. That which proves too much is as 
worthless in argument as that which proves nothing. 

" Having made a purification for sins," I under- 
stand this passage to mean that Jesus Christ cleansed- 
or purged all from original sin ; that in consequence 
of the righteousness, suffering and death of Jesus. 
Christ that no one will be lost for original sin. That 
individuals are lost for actual sins committed in their 
own person. The Elder referred to 53d Chapter of 
Isaiah, as proof that the sufferings of Jesus Christ 
made an atonement, or reconciliation, for the sins of 
the elect. If this chapter proves that the sufferings 
of Jesus Christ made an atonement or reconciliation, 
it proves too much for the Elder. There is nothing 
exclusive in the chapter. If it proves that Jesus 
Christ by his sufferings made an atonement or recon 
ciliation, it proves he made it for all the race. Isa. 
liii., 6 : i(, All we, like sheep, have gone astray ; we 
have turned every one to his own way ; and the Lord 
hath laid on him the iniquity of us ally 

If there is any that has not gone astray, that has 
not turned to his own way, then the prophet does. 



30 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

not say that such an one has his iniquities placed or 
laid on Christ, but all who have gone astray or 
turned to their own way, have had their iniquities laid 
on Jesus, 5th v. : "But He was wounded for our trans- 
gressions, He was bruised for our iniquities ; the chas- 
tisement of our peace was upon him, and with His 
stripes we are healed, " 

I understand this to have reference to the right- 
eousness, suffering and death of Christ removing 
the condemnation brought on the race by the sin of 
our first representative, so that the barrier inter- 
posed between God's mercy and the lost sinner is 
removed and we are again brought in reach of life 
through Christ. 

The Elder again refers to 1 Peter, iii., 18 : " For 
Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for 
the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being 
put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the 
Spirit." 

This passage, like many others, proves that Christ 
suffered for sins, that He suffered for the unjust. 
But if Christ's sufferings for the unjust made an atone- 
ment, or reconciliation, then the atonement or re- 
conciliation was universal or as broad as the race, for 
all are represented as being "unjust. Rom. iii., 10 : 
" As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not 
one." 19 v. : " Now we know that what things so- 
ever the law saith, it saith to them who are under 
the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all 
the world may become guilty before God." 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT.J 31 

There is nothing exclusive in this suffering — it was 
for the unjust, and if it made reconciliation, it made 
it for all. This passage belongs to that class which 
referred to the removal of condemnation for original 
sin. Christ suffered for all, died for all, brought all 
back in reach of life, and will, by virtue of his 
righteousness, suffering, death and resurrection, ran- 
som all from the grave, give to all life from the dead, 
but does this prove that anyone was reconciled on 
the cross ? By no means. We still find enmity ex- 
isting in the minds of all until they are born of the 
Spirit of God. John iii., 5, 6. That suffering does 
not make reconciliation, let us examine for a short 
time the type which prefigures the atonement, or re- 
conciliation, which Jesus Christ makes in heaven 
before the mercy seat in the presence of the Majesty 
on high with His blood, 1 John, i., 7 : " And the 
blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all 
sin." Heb. ix., 24: " For Christ is not entered into 
the holy places made with hands, which are the fig- 
ures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear 
in the presence of God for us." Heb. viii. ? 12: 
" Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by 
His own blood He entered in once into the holy 
place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." 

Redemption must be in Christ, must be in pro- 
cess of completion through Christ, before reconcilia- 
tion, or atonement can be accomplished, or anyone 
cleansed by His- blood. That suffering does not 



32 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

atone, and present them at the door of the Taber- 
nacle, the goat is to be killed outside the Tabernacle, 
but the sufferings and death of the goat, which is 
the type of Christ, did not make an atonement or re- 
conciliation. The blood must be taken into the Taber- 
nacle, from there into the second department, into 
the holy place and there sprinkled upon the mercy 
seat to make an atonement, or reconciliation. Lev. 
xvi., 5-22. That suffering did not make an atone- 
ment, or reconciliation is as clear as the noonday 
sun — it took the blood to make the atonement. 

But suffering was necessary to the obtaining of 
the blood, therefore the suffering of Christ was nec- 
essary to the making of an atonement, but the suf- 
ferings did not make the atonement. The atone- 
ment is made by the meritoroius blood of Jesus 
Christ. 

If sufferings could make an atonement, surely the 
sufferings of the damned in hell should be sufficient 
to make an atonement. The law surely would be 
satisfied with the sufferings of its victims, and release 
its hold, throw open its doors and let its captives go 
free. The Elder then referred to the faith and 
teachings of the Methodist and others. He and 
they may settle their differences. I am here to ad- 
vocate what I understand the Bible to teach, regard- 
less of the opinion of any one. 

The Elder calls our attention to Heb. ix., 26 : ; ' For 
then must He often have suffered- since the founda- 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 33 

tion of the world ; but now once in the end of the 
world hath He appeared to put away sin, by the sacri- 
fice of Himself.'' 

This refers to the putting away of original sin — the 
removal of the condemnation that interposed be- 
tween the mercy of God and the lost sinner. Through 
the meritorious righteousness of Jesus Christ the 
mercy of God may be extended to the vilest of the 
vile, and all may come unto Him by repentance and 
faith, become reconciled, obtain forgiveness, become 
new creatures in Jesus Christ. Again the Elder 
calls attention to a passage in Dan. ix, 24 : "Seventy 
weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy 
Holy City to finish the transgressions, and to make an 
end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, 
and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal 
up the the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the 
most Holy." 

The transgressions and sins of the Jews continued 
to be perpetuated after the death of Jesus Christ on 
the cross. If possible, they seemed to be more 
wicked after his death than before. Therefore, as 
transgression and sin continued to exist, there is no 
proof that reconciliation was made for them on the 
cross. The prophet, by the spirit of inspiration, was 
enabled to foresee the coming of Jesus Christ, the 
mighty work He would perform while on earth ; that 
He would be crucified or cut off from among the lhr 



34 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

ing; that He would ascend the mediatorial throne, and 
that at the completion of His work as the mediator, 
the grand and glorious result would be to finish 
transgression, put an end to sin, and make complete 
reconciliation for both soul and body. 

The spirit of the believer is reconciled through 
Jesus Christ at the time that it is born of the 
spirit of God, but not before. The body never 
becomes reconciled in life, and therefore must wait 
until the resurrection, when perfect reconciliation 
is completed through Jesus Christ. Rom. vii., 14-25 : 
" So then with the mind, I myself serve the law of 
God, but with the flesh the law of sin." 

I have noticed, I believe, about all the passages to 
which the Elder called our attention. 

I now wish to commence an argument in opposi- 
tion to the theory presented by Elder Potter. Our 
first parents were created by God and given a home 
in Eden. They were endowed by their Creator with 
intellectual, physical and moral powers. They pos- 
sessed the intellect to understand what God taught 
them to do ; they had the physical power to 
perform that which was required of them, and the 
moral qualities or inclinations which would have 
caused them to obey God, uninfluenced by foreign 
pressure. They had the power to resist that pres- 
sure if they had exercised it. God informed them 
what they should do to remain happy. This infor- 
mation was an expression of the divine will, therefore 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 35 

a law. Gen. ii., 16-17. If a law, there must be penalty. 
The penalty was a cutting off from life. Gen. iii, 22- 
24. The result was death. When our first parents 
threw off the authority of God and rebelled against 
Him, they became subject to the penalty of the law. 
They were condemned to death, Gen. iii., 16-19. 
They acted voluntarily. Adam was not deceived, 1 
Tim. ii., 14. Thus they had no just cause of com- 
plaint against God. They had no legal demands 
upon him. Justice demanded the infliction of the 
penalty. Mercy alone interposed in behalf of the 
offender. Christ proposed to undertake the redemp- 
tion of man from his lost condition. 

But our first parents were not only accountable for 
their action to God, but they were the representa- 
tives of the race — they transmitted to their posterity 
sinful natures. The entire race, except Adam and 
Eve, are in possession of sinful, natures by no fault 
of their own. Rom. viii., 20: " For the creature was 
made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason 
of him who subjected the same in hope." 

No one belonging to the race, except Adam and 
Eve, has ever had it in their power to live free from 
sin, or keep the law. Would it be right or just to cre- 
ate the many millions who have lived and who may yet 
live, they to inherit sinful natures through no fault 
of their own, incapable of complying with the com- 
mands or law of God, and then to condemn them to 
endless punishment for a failure to do what they 



36 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

could not posssbly do? And this punishment in- 
flicted without any means being provided by which 
there is a possibility to escape from the impending 
doom. 

To contend that God will condemn and send to 
endless punishment, to live with the devil and his 
angels, one individual for committing sin, when the 
individual was brought into existence without any 
desire upon his own part for that existence, given a 
sinful nature through no fault of his own, given a law 
which he is incapable of complying with, without pro- 
viding means for the deliverance of the individual 
from sin, is most certainly to impeach the character 
of God and accuse Him of injustice. 

I wish to use an illustration that will present the 
case clearly to the minds of all. Suppose a father 
having two sons should assign them a task which he 
knew they could not perform, giving them no means 
or assistance by which they could accomplish that 
which he required. Then, for the failure to do that 
which he required, he calls upon them to give an ac- 
count. They stand up and say : " What you required 
of us, it was impossible for us to perform. You gave 
us no means or assistance by which we could do 
what you demanded. We plead inability in justifi- 
cation of our failure. We demand clemency at your 
hands according to justice. " 

The father says : " I knew you could not perform 
the task but you must suffer the penalty. Though 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 37 

you deserve no clemency at my hands, and justice 
demands that you be punished to the utmost extent 
the full penalty, yet I will forgive my eldest son. He 
shall live with me and inherit my possessions, and be 
restored to full favor. But you, my youngest son, 
have failed to do what I commanded you to do. My 
authority must be maintained. I must defend the 
dignity of my character. " 

The father inflicts the most severe cruelty it is 
possible for him to conceive — wounds and maims his 
boy in such a way as to make him miserable and 
helpless for life, the wounds ultimately resulting in 
death. He drives him from home, persecutes him 
from place to place, and makes him as miserable as 
he can all the days of his life. 

What would be the decision of the world in regard 
to the act of the father ? That he was an unjust 
cruel tyrant, unworthy the respect and confidence of 
his fellowmen. Then if God with his infinite wisdom 
and power has brought multiplied millions of beings 
into existence and given them a law they cannot obey ; 
if,in consequence of a sin committed by their first rep- 
resentative, they have inherited sinful natures, that 
disqualifies or renders them incapable of compliance 
with the law given, and there is no means of assist- 
ance afforded them, no Savior provided for them, 
no Spirit to influence them, and no means of a deliv- 
erance from sin ever brought within their reach, 
would it not be a violation of the principle of justice 



38 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

to send them to a world of wretchedness and misery 
to be punished to all eternity for not doing a thing 
it was impossible for them to do ? That it is impos- 
sible for man in his fallen condition to live free from 
sin. Read Gal. iii., 21 : " Is the law then against 
the promises of God ? God forbid ! for if there had 
been a law given which could have given life, verily 
righteousness should have been by the law." 

That Adam and Eve in Eden had the power to 
obey God, I think Elder Potter will admit. That any 
of the race except our first representatives have ever 
been in possession of the ability to obey God and 
keep the law unaided or unassisted by divine grace 
I do not believe the Elder will affirm. Then, if there 
is any of the race lost, which the Elder will not 
deny, and there has been no provisions made by 
which they may receive assistance, then they are 
sent to eternal misery and destruction for not keeping 
a law which they had no power to keep, or are sent 
there just because Gcd made them or designed them 
to go there. The Elder will not like to choose 
either of these dilemmas, for either would represent 
God as being unjust. 

There is but one other conclusion to accept, and 
that is that God affords help to all, but if they will 
not avail themselves of the assistance given and are 
lost, it is their own fault. As the race inherited sin- 
ful natures through their first representatives, which 
brought upon their descendants all the sorrow,' 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 39 

trouble and difficulties of this life, justice demanded 
as well as mercy, that an interposition of divine 
favor should be extended to those who have in- 

»herited sinful natures through no fault of their own. 
Jesus Christ was sent in consequenee of God's 
love to the world, to redeem the world from the con- 
demnation brought on the world by their first repre- 
sentative. He became the second representative of 
the race. 1 Cor. xv., 45, 47. " The first man, Adam, 
was made a living soul. The last Adam was made 
a quickening spirit." " The first man is of the earth, 
earthy, the second man is the Lord from Heaven. " 

[Time Out.] 



CHAPTER III. 



MR. POTTER'S SECOND SPEECH. 

Brethten, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
/"•"TRGUMENT Third.— I argue that the atonement 
yl was made on the cross, because the blood of 
Christ was shed on the cross, and by His blood He re- 
deemed us. Rev. v., 9 : " And they sang anew song, 
saying, ' Thou art worthy to take the book, and to 
open the seals thereof, for Thou wast slain and hast 
redeemed us to God by Thy blood out of every kin- 
dred, and tongue and people and nation.' " 

In this text we are taught that He was slain, and 
that He redeemed us to God by His blood. If He 
redeemed us by His blood and that blood was shed 
on the cross, then our redemption was completed on 
the cross. If we were redeemed by the blood of 
Christ, the blood of Christ atoned for sin ; and if His 
blood atoned for sin, then the atonement was made 

Ion the cross, for there is where He shed His blood. 
To redeem us to God by His blood, is the same as 



42 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

to reconcile us to God by His death. Hence, it 
seems to me very clear, that He made the atone- 
ment on the cross. How did He reconcile us to God 
by His death, if His death was not an atonement 
for sin ? How did He redeem us to God by His 
blood, if His blood did not atone for sin ? Was it 
not our sins that had separated us from God ? If it 
was our sins that separated us from God, how did 
He redeem us to God, only by removing our sins ? 
The only way sins could be removed was by the 
blood of atonement, and if Christ's blood did not 
atone for sin, then it did not remove it, and if it did 
not remove it, then His blood did not redeem us to 
God. But He did redeem us to God by His blood, 
therefore, His blood atoned for sin, and as His 
blood was shed on the cross, so it inevitably follows 
that the atonement was made on the cross. 

Gal. iii., 13 ; " Christ hath redeemed us from the 
curse of the law, being made a curse tor us ; for it is 
written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." 

From this text we clearly see that our redemption 
price was paid by the Savior on the tree, and that 
our redemption from the curse of the law was made 
there, and I argue that if He redeemed us from the 
curse of the law, it was by meeting the demands of 
the law for us. The law had just and equitable 
claims against us for our transgressions, which it held 
until our transgressions were atoned for. So, as 
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse, it must 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 43 

have been as the Apostle here says, being made a 
curse for us. How was He made a curse for us ? It 
was by hanging on the tree. " Cursed is every one 
that hangeth on a tree." If He redeemed us by 
being made a curse for us, and if he was made 
as a curse for us, by hanging on the tree, 
then our redemption price was paid on the tree, and 
if so, the atonement was made on the cross. He 
was made a curse for us. What cursed him but our 
sins ? He sustained that curse for us or in our 
place, and it must be that if He did, and that was 
sufficient to redeem us, that He made an atonement 
for our sins in the transaction. If He did not atone 
for our sins on the cross, He redeemed us without 
any atonement ; and if my brother claims that He re- 
deemed us from the curse of the law by hanging on 
the tree, and yet made no atonement on the cross, I 
ask him to tell us how He did redeem. Did He re- 
deem without paying any price, or making any satis- 
faction for sin ? This He must have done if He 
redeemed and yet made no atonement. 

1 Pet. ii., 24 : " Who His ownself bear our sins 
in His own body on the tree." What did He bear 
our sins on the tree for, only to atone for them ? I 
rely on such texts as these to prove that the atone- 
ment was made on the cross, and if they do not teach 
that it was, I wish to know it. I ask the careful 
attention of my brother to the arguments I make on 
these proof texts. Why did He bear our sins in His 
body on the tree, if He made no atonemeut for them 



44 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

on the tree ? lhat is the question I shall expect to 
hear answered in his reply. 

In order to more fully establish this point, I quote 
Rom. v.., 9 : " Much more then, being now justified 
by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through 
Him." Justified by what? Justified by His blood. 
Where was his blood shed ? On the cross. This 
text teaches that we afe justified by His blood, and 
my brother will admit, I presume, that His blood 
was shed on the cross, but he denies that any atone- 
ment was made on the cross. How are we justified 
by His blood, if that blood did not atone for sin ? 
To justify is to absolve — that is, to set free, or release 
from some obligation, debt or responsibility, or from 
that which subjects a person to a burden or penalty. 
It is in this sense, undoubtedly, that we are justified 
by His blood, and that being true, He evidently 
made an atonement on the cross. 

Argument Fourth. — I argue that Jesus Christ 
made an atonement on the cross, from the fact that 
His atonement is illustrated by the various atone- 
ments under the law, and He is the central object of 
them. 

Exodus xxx., 12, 16 : " When thou takest the sum 
of the children of Israel after their number, then 
shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto 
the Lord, when thou numberest them ; that there be 
no plague among them when thou numberest them. 
This they shall give, every one that passes them that 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 45 

are numbered, half a shekel, after the shekel of the 
sanctuary ; [an half shekel is twenty gerahs] ; an half 
shekel shall be the offering of the Lord. Every one 
that passeth among them that are numbered, from 
twenty years old and above, shall give an offering 
unto the Lord. The rich shall not give more, and 
the poor shall not give less than half a shekel when 
they give an offering unto the Lord to make an 
atonement for your souls. And thou shalt take the 
atonement money, of the children of Israel, and 
shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of 
the congregation ; that it may be a memorial unto 
the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an 
atonement for your souls." 

In all the various atonement offerings under the 
law, the respective victims were without blemish ; 
were the property of the persons on whose account 
they were to be offered; the crimes they were designed 
to expiate and atone for, were first solemnly con- 
fessed over them, and then as having sin placed on 
or transferred to them, they were offered up as the 
sinner's substitute, in consequence of which tempo- 
rary forgiveness was obtained ; for these were only 
shadows of good things to come, and were offered 
year by year continually, but could never make the 
comers thereunto perfect, or take away sin as per- 
taining to the conscience. " The law made nothing 
perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by 
the which we draw nigh unto God." 



46 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. ^ 

Atonement is a declaration of divine righteous- 
ness, and a vindication of Jehovah's justice in con- 
demning and punishing for sins ; therefore, the act 
of Phineas in taking vengeance in behalf of God on 
daring offenders, is called an atonement for the con- 
gregation. Atonement designed as a covering of 
the guilty soul ; thereby their iniquities are covered 
and their transgressions are forgiven. When the 
congregation was numbered, it was enjoined on 
every man to give to the Lord a ransom for his soul ; 
the rich were not to give more than a half a shekel, 
nor the poor less; which was called atonement 
money, as thereby atonement was made for their 
souls. In consequence of which price, they were 
covered from the plague, to which they were liable. 

So Jesus gave Himself a ransom for many ; His 
people were bought with a price, not with silver or 
gold, but with the precious blood of the Son of God, in 
whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of 
sins. By the blessed Jesus, the purity of God's law 
was fully approved and eternally preserved, its right- 
eous claims established and fully confirmed ; its 
tremendous curse was by Him endured, and His 
people exempted from wrath to come. In Him 
mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and 
peace have kissed each other. 

He is the true anti-type of the mercy-seat, whom 
God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith 
in His blood. The seat of mercy where Diety ap- 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 47 

peared propitious, was the cover of, and supported 
by the ark, which contained and preserved the Holy 
Law, which men had violated, denoting that the 
glory of God's righteous government must be se- 
cured before pardoning mercy could be discovered. 
To deny the glory and equity of God's law, by which 
sinners are condemned prior to the coming of Christ, 
is to undermine the foundation of mercy, and destroy 
the pillars which support the throne of rich, reigning 
grace. The blood of atonement, sprinkled annually 
on the mercy seat by the high priest, was an ac- 
knowledgement of the guilt of Israel, and Jehovah's 
just authority ; and likewise of their absolute depend- 
ence on His voluntary mercy, richly dispensed and 
gloriously displayed, consistent with His infinite 
hatred to sin, and inflexible regard to impartial jus- 
tice and primitive equity. 

The atonement money was the price of the re- 
demption of Israel from the plague, and the blood of 
Christ, which answers to it, is the price of our re- 
demption. As the payment of the money was to make 
the atonement, so the shedding of Christ's blood 
was to make an atonement. Therefore the atone- 
ment was made on the cross, for He shed His blood 
on the cross. 

Argument Fifth. — My fifth argument is, that 
the atonement of Christ was typified in the passover. 

The lamb slain was the Lord's passover, Ex. xii., 
11. So we are taught that : "Christ, our passover, 
is sacrificed for us." 1 Cor. v., 7. 



48 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Let us notice the similarity of the two for a mo- 
ment. The animal selected for the passover sacri- 
fice was a lamb. So Christ is repeatedly called a 
lamb, on account of His innocence, meekness, m 
humility and patience. " He is brought as a lamb to 
the slaughter," Isa. liii., 7. "Behold the lamb of 
God/' John i., 29. " As of a lamb without blemish 
and without spot," 1 Pet. i., 19. " Stood as a lamb 
slain," Rev. v., 6. It was to be a male of a year old 
and without blemish. Denoting perfection of kind, 
not weakly, infirm, nor diseased. So Christ was 
altogether perfect, without spot He offered Himself 
to God. Heb. vii., 26. 

The lamb was to be separated from the flock, Ex. 
xii., 5. So Christ was separated and appointed unto 
this work. Separated to this in the divine designs 
and purposes of God, as is abundantly taught in all 
the prophecies, and as is illustriously exhibited in 
His birth, and during His life, and in the garden, 
and on the cross, Heb. vii, 26. 

The paschal lamb was to be slain. So was Jesus. 
" Thou wast slain," Rev. v., 9. 

It certainly will not be denied that the paschal 
lamb was a figure of Christ. If it was, it was a 
type of the atonement, as the atonement is certainly 
prefigured in the lamb slain. This being true, then 
I claim that I have, beyond successful contradiction, 
sustained the first part of my proposition — that is, 
that the atonement was made on the cross. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 49 

Argument Sixth. — My sixth argument is de- 
duced from the fact that the offering of Christ was 
for sin, and that the offering sanctified and per- 
fected the people. Heb. x., 10 : " By the which will 
we are sanctified through the offering of the body of 
Jesus Chirst once for all" 

Now, bear in mind that this sanctification is 
through the offering of the body of the Son of God. 
He offered His body on the cross. Through that 
offering that was made on the cross, we are sancti- 
fied. How does the offering that was made on the 
cross sanctify us, if that offering was not a sacrifice 
for sin. How is it a sacrifice for sin, if it 
does not atone for sin? I hope my brother will 
pay some respect to this argument, for if he does 
not, it will be understood as unanswerble. 

I especially challenge his answer to the question : 
"What is the difference between an offering for sin, 
or a sacrifice for sin, and an atonement for sin ? ' r 
Was it not understood by the priest and people under 
the Levitical economy, that the sacrifices and offer- 
ings they made, were for the purpose of atoning for 
their sins ? I shall not ask my opponent about that ; 
it matters but little to me what he thinks of a thing 
that the Scriptures are so pointed on. I shall 
refer to them, and, when he- answers this question, 
let him show me my mistake. 

I will read Lev. iv., 20 : "And he shall do with the 
bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, 



50 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

so shall he do with this ; and the priest shall make 
an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven 
them. ,, 

Here we have an offering and an atonement, both 
mentioned in the same thing. He dare not tell us 
that those Jewish offerings did not point to the offer- 
ing of the body of Christ, but if an offering in the 
figure was an atonement, how is it that the offering 
in substance is not an atonement also ? I presume 
we will not hear an answer to that. The very idea 
of an offering for sin implies an atonement for sin. 
If the offerings of the Tews made an atonement, then 
the offering of Christ made an atonement. If the 
offering of Christ was to make an atonement, then 
He made an atonement on the cross, for there is 
where He was offered, 

In connection with the Jewish offering the word 
" atonement " occurs four times in the fourth chapter 
of Leviticus, and about six times or more in other 
places, in the Old Testament and it is generally, if 
not always connected with offerings and sacrifices. 
As the Bible is so plain that the Jewish offerings did 
atone for the people, and that the offering of Christ 
is the great anti-type of all those types, I argue that 
the offering of Christ was for the purpose of atoning 
for sin. 

One thing is certain, that the atonement was made 
on the cross, or else it was made before, or after, or 
not at all. If Christ's blood atoned for sin, then 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 51 

the atonement was made on the cross, as I have al- 
ready observed. 

Argument Seventh. — I argue that an atone- 
ment for sin is necessary in order to the forgiveness 
of sins. 

Lev. iv., 26 : " And the priest shall make an atone- 
ment for him, as concerning his sin, and it shall be 
forgiven him." The same expression occurs in the 
20th, 31st and 35th verses of the same chapter. 
After the atonement, or in consequence of the atone- 
ment, forgiveness is extended. This was the case 
under the former dispensation, among the types, and 
if they prefigured Christ, which the Apostles teach 
that they did, then Christ atoned for the people, and 
thereby secured our forgiveness. This atonement 
was made with blood under the old covenant, Ex. 
xxx., 10 : " And Aaron shall make an atonement 
upon the horns of it once in a year, with the blood 
of the sin-offering of. atonements; once in a year 
shall he make atonement upon it throughout your 
generations ; it is most holy unto the Lord." 

This text proves that it was blood that atoned for 
sin, and I have shown you that in the old dispensa- 
tion, the atonement was in order to forgiveness. To 
atone for sin is to purge from sin, and the Apostle 
says : M And almost all things are by the law purged 
with blood ; and without shedding of blood there is 
no remission," Heb. ix., 22. Hence, as there must 
be an atonement in order to remission, and the shed- 



52 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

ding of blood is necessary to remission, and it was 
blood that made the atonement in the figure, what 
are we left to conclude, only that Christ's blood was 
shed in order to remission, and that His blood as 
truly atoned for the sins of the people, as did the 
blood of the beasts anciently ? 

Jesus said, when he instituted the supper : "For 
this is my blood of the New Tastament, which is 
shed for many for the remission of sins," Matt, 
xxvi, 28. 

Remember, now, this is the language of Jesus 
Himself, and he is especially speaking of His blood. 

He calls it His blood of the' New Testament, and 
He says it is shed for many, for, in order to, the re- 
mission of sins. Where was His blood shed ? On 
the cross. What was it shed for ? For the remis- 
sion of sin. Did that blood atone for sin ? I ask 
my brother to say. If he says it did not, I ask : " Why 
was it shed for the remission of sins ? " If he ad- 
mits that it did atone for sin, then he must admit 
that the atonement was made on the cross. 

If the atonement was not made on the cross, the 
blood of Christ did not atone for sin, for it was shed 
on the cross. I have already shown that He re- 
deemed us from the curse of the law, being made a 
curse for us, for it is wrttten : " Cursed is every one 
that hangeth on a tree." I have also proven that 
He redeemed us with His blood, and I now prove 
that His blood was shed in order to remission. The 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 53 

Apostles say : "In whom we have redemption 
through His biood, the forgiveness of sins, accord- 
ing to the riches of His grace/' Eph. i., 7, Col. i., 14. 

I feel confident now, that I have sustained the 
first part of my proposition, so I will now pass on to 
the second division of the question I have already 
remarked, that the doctrine of the atonement is the 
basis of the whole Christian structure. It is con- 
nected with all that is consolatory ; in the experi- 
ence, and powerful in the practice of the believer. 
Without this doctrine, the light of truth is beclouded, 
the hope of acceptance doubtful, and the remedy for 
man's sin and misery, of very questionable efficiency. 

I wish to preface my argument's on this part of the 
proposition, with a few thoughts on the necessity 
and nature of the atonement. The necessity of the 
atonement arises from man's sin and its necessary 
consequences. A holy and righteous law was given 
to a responsible man, sanctioned by rewards and 
penalties, given by the most holy and just of all law- 
givers, — the God of Heaven — the moral governor of 
the universe. 

This law rewarded the obedient and punished the 
disobedient. Sin is the transgression of this law, 
and if a man sins, he must suffer the penalty, him- 
self, or another must suffer it for him, God, the 
law-giver, will not allow sin to go unpunished. The 
law requires everything that is good, or right, and 
forbids everything that is wrong. 



54 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

As the law is the embodiment of all that is perfect- 
ly just and equitable, it requires nothing that is un- 
reasonable. If man never violates it, it will never 
punish him, but if he does, it demands satisfaction. 
Its claims for satisfaction are perfectly just and right, 
so that no guilty person has a right to complain at 
the penalty of the law he has violated. 

This law has been violated by our race, and for 
that violation we are justly condemned. We have 
been tried by the law, and found guilty of transgres- 
sion, and for such transgression we stand exposed 
to the divine penalty. God, the Judge, is not under 
any obligation to release us, until we suffer the 
penalty. We have *no claim upon Him at all for a 
remedy for our wrongs, and unless we are able to 
atone for our sins, we must suffer the penalty, or one 
that can must atone for us. If no one comes to our 
relief we are condemned forever, for we are not able 
to make satisfaction for our sins. We might be sent 
to perdition forever for our sins, and our eternity of 
suffering on our part never could satisfy the law. 
Then we can easily see the necessity of the atone- 
ment. Man is utterly incapable of rendering satis- 
faction for his sins. 

The law will hold its claim until satisfaction is 
rendered, and no sinner can be saved until the law 
is satisfied. If man did not stand when he was in- 
nocent, how will he serve God, and be accepted of 
him now he is guilty and polluted ? If obedience to 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT, 55 

the law could be rendered in the future, that could 
not be sufficient to remove past guilt, and the curse 
annexed to it. Neither could our tears and peni- 
tence make amends for the violated law. 

The demands of the law cannot be relaxed with 
any degree of honor to the law-giver, for, if the de- 
mands of the law be relaxed, the truth would be 
violated, and the rights of justice would be infringed, 
the interests of holiness wou Id suffer, and confusion 
and disorder would be introduced into the adminis- 
tration of God. Under this state of things what did 
Deity do? He devised the expedient of the atone- 
ment. 

Having now seen the necessity of the atonement, 
I wish next, to notice the nature of the atonement 
for a few moments. It is very evident that the per- 
son atoning must be superior in dignity to those for 
whom the atonement is made. Such was the great 
sacrifice that was provided. He possessed all power 
and honor and glory. He was infinitely higher than 
the first Adam, even, in a state of innocency. Adam 
was natural ; he was spiritual ; Jesus Christ was Lord 
of all, and the Father gave " him power over all 
flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as 
the Father had given him." 

And, as he came into the world to make an atone- 
ment, it was necessary that he possess the same 
nature as the ones for whom he atones. The law 
was given to man, and violated by man, and the 



56 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

penalty is justly demanded from man, so, in order to 
redeem, Christ was "made of a woman, made under 
the law, to redeem them that were under the law." 
"He took not on him the nature of angels, but he 
took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all 
things it behooved him to be made like unto his 
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful 
high priest in things pertaining to God, to make 
reconciliation for the sins of the people." Heb. ii., 
17, 18. 

He, who atones for the sins of the people, must 
have a right to dispose of his own life, and freely 
offer himself to that end. No mere creature has the 
right to dispose of his lite, for God alone is the right- 
ful disposer of the lives of men. Christ had the 
right to dispose of his life. He says : 

"Therefore, doth my Father love me, because I lay 
down my life, that I might take it again. No man 
taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I 
have power to lay it down, and I have power to take 
it again. This commandment have I received of my 
Father." Tohn x., 17, 18. 

From this it is very clearly seen that Jesus had 
the right to dispose of his own life. Therefore, he 
could say, "I am the good Shepherd. The good 
Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." 

One more qualification is necessary to make one 
fit to atone for the sins of the people, and that is, he 
must approve of the law, and acknowledge the justice 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 57 

of its claims. It would ill-become the Redeemer to 
complain that the law was too rigid in its claims, or 
that it exacted too much. But the one who atones 
must be one who honors the law, and who realizes 
the strict justice of its claims, and is willing to meet 
all its demands, though they be ever so severe. 

It is evident that Christ delighted in the law, and 
loved to perform its requirements. He did not come 
to set the law aside, nor to destroy it, but he came to 
fulfill it, and he says : "Until Heaven and earth 
shall pass, not one jot, or title of the law shall pass, 
until all be fulfilled." Christ came to meet the de- 
mands of the law as they were, and not as they 
might be. He came to redeem men from the claims 
of law, by paying all their debt, and not by simply 
paying a small portion of it, so as to make salvation 
possible. He, by the atonement, made the salvation 
of those for whom he atoned absolutely certain. 

Another qualification he must have. He must be 
free from all charges himself, and if he is not, he 
must require a sacrifice for himself, and his offering 
would be polluted, and in that case his offering 
would be of no value. Jesus Christ was spotless ; 
His offering was "as of a lamb without blemish and 
without spot," 1 Pet., i., 19. He "offered himself 
without spot to God," Heb., ix., 14. 

Possessing all these traits of character, he must, if 
he atones, answer all the demands of the law, and 
endure its curse. 



58 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Such is the nature and necessity of the atonement, 
— that upon which the saints are allowed to build 
their hopes of Heaven and immortal glory. 

Now, then, I wish to pay some attention and re- 
spect to some things Brother Dickey said. In the 
first place he accepts my definition of reconciliation 
and atonement. I want that distinctly understood, 
that he says himself, reconciliation means atonement, 
and atonement means reconciliation. Well, now, 
then, what does my proposition say ? It says the 
atonement was made on the cross. What does the 
text I quoted say ? It says, "being reconciled to 
God by His death." Where did He die ? On the 
cross. Bear in mind, if He died on the cross, 
reconciliation was made on the cross. Why ? Be- 
cause He died on the cross, and by His death we were 
reconciled, and hence, if the two words mean the 
same thing, the atonement was made on the cross. 

Brother Dickey then wants to know if you were 
enemies to God at that time. He says if you were 
not you could not have been reconciled when Christ 
died. He says you did not live then, you had no 
malice in your hearts then, — you had no existence 
whatever. I ask, were you sinners then ? Tell the 
people whether we had any sin or not. 

He says we did not have any sin then. Then 
have you no interest in Christ's death, simply be- 
cause you did not live when He died ? Would any 
be saved that now live without His death ? By His 
death He put sin away, and in the very same man- 
ner He benefitted you who were enemies. He died 
for you before you had any existence. 

[Time Out.] 



CHAPTER IV. 



MR. DICKEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 

Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I WILL first notice some of the arguments Brother 
Potter presented to prove his position. He ar- 
gues that atonement was made on the cross, because 
it was made with the blood of Jesus Christ. And 
that as the blood was shed on the eross, therefore the 
atonement was made on the cross. This would seem 
to be a reasonable conclusion, or plausible at least, 
if we should not examine the Scripture's bearing on 
this subject. But it is by the light and teaching of 
inspiration alone, that we shall be able to fathom the 
depths of this profound subject ; therefore, it is not 
sufficient that an argument may appear to have some 
plausibility about it, but we must have the plain 
teaching of the word of God, for it is only by the 
word of God that we know anything about the atone- 
ment, or reconciliation, being in process of comple- 
tion through Jesus Christ. We never could have 



60 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

reasoned out the atonement. It was conceived in 
the mind of God, it is unfolded alone in the great 
scheme of salvation, as presented in God's word. 
Therefore, to the word of inspiration we must turn 
for information on this subject. 

Before Jesus Christ came to earth, all those who 
were saved, were saved through Him, just the same 
as those who have been saved since His coming, 
have been saved through Him. If it is necessary 
that men to be saved since the coming of Christ, 
need to be reconciled to God, it was necessary for 
men who lived before His coming, if saved, to be 
reconciled to God. If we need information on this 
subject now, those who lived before the coming of 
Christ needed information then. If they needed 
information and God gave it to them, we certainly 
may learn from that information now, if it is left on 
record. The work of Christ in reconciling men to 
God, or making an atonement, was clearly set forth 
by type, or in figure for their information. 

Can we not learn from the type if they could ? 
Read carefully the 16th chapter of Lev. on the sub- 
ject of the atonement, and the manner in which it 
was made. We will now examine the type or figure. 

A Tabernacle was built. This Tabernacle was a 
type or figure of Heaven. A kid of the goats was 
selected. The goat was a type of Christ. The goat 
was killed outside the Tabernacle ; a figure that 
Christ was to be crucified here on earth. The blood 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 61 

was taken through the outer court of the Tabernacle 
into the holy place, and an atonement or reconcilia- 
tion made with it, by the High Priest sprinkling it 
upon the mercy seat, in the presence of the Lord, as 
revealed in the cloud over the mercy seat. This is a 
type, or figure of Jesus Christ entering Heaven after 
His death and resurrection, and ascension, and there 
in the presence of the Majesty on High, offering His 
blood upon the mercy seat, by which an atonement 
or reconciliation was to be made for all those who 
would believe in Him. The type represents the 
precious blood of Christ as being sprinkled on the 
mercy seat in Heaven, when it is represented as 
remaining in the presence of the Father continually,, 
as the blood remained on the mercy seat in the 
Tabernacle, and that those who believe in Christ, in- 
all ages, are reconciled and cleansed through the 
meritorious righteousness of His blood. 

The question between the Elder and myself is not 
whether the blood of Jesus Christ is that by which 
reconciliation is made but it is whether the atone- 
ment was made when the blood was shed on the 
cross, or will be made by the presentation of the 
meritorious blood of Jesus Christ before the Father 
in Heaven, when the individual believes in Jesus. 
Th2 type represents reconciliation, or atonement 
being made in Heaven. The believer becomes rec- 
onciled in mind, or spirit, at the time he believes irk 
Christ. The body at the resurrection. 



62 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Reconciliation, then, is not complete, only in pro- 
cess of completion. The work will be carried on by 
Christ through the ordained instrumentalities chosen 
by God, until He steps off the mediatorial throne, 
and delivers up the kingdom to God the Father. 
He speaks of Christ redeeming us on the cross. I 
will notice redemption further along in this discus- 
sion. 

Again the Elder inquires : " If the suffering of 
Jesus on the cross did not make an atonement, why 
did he suffer ?" Because God did not ordain that 
an atonement or reconciliation should be made by 
suffering, but by the precious blood of Christ. Why 
did not the suffering of the good make an atonement ? 
Because God ordained that an atonement should be 
made with the blood, and not by suffering. The 
blood of the goat could not be obtained without suf- 
fering ; it must be put to death ; it must die. 

The blood of Jesus could not be obtained without 
suffering ; He must die ; it was necessary for Him to 
lay down His life for the sins of the world, 1 John, 
ii., 2. But laying down his life did not make an 
atonement, it was a necessary step in the great work, 
without which an atonement could not have been 
made. 

The Elder represents that the slaying of the Pas- 
chal Lamb made an atonement. Here he is mistak- 
en. There is nothing intimated in the Scriptures 
about the Paschal Lamb making an atonement. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 63 

The Paschal Lamb was a type of Christ, and repre- 
sents a different part of His work, which He per- 
formed instead of the atonement. 

The Lord instructed Moses how the Paschal Lamb 
should be slain and eaten, the blood put upon the 
door-post of the houses in which it was eaten, as a 
sign to the destroying angel, that he might pass by 
the first born in Israel and thus preserve the lives of 
all Israel. God was just in the act of redeeming Israel, 
all the descendants of Abraham, from Egyptian bond- 
age, Exo. vi., 6, 15, 13. The slaying of the Paschal 
Lamb and the putting of the blood on the door-post, 
and the redemption of Israel from Egyptian bond- 
age, is a type of Jesus Christ, by his righteousness, 
death and blood, redeeming the entire race from 
under the condemnation brought on the 
world by the sin of our first representative, so that 
the. barrier interposed between the mercy of God, 
and the lost sinner being thus removed, all are 
brought in reach of life, and will receive life from 
the dead through the resurrection of Christ. The 
Paschal Lamb slain represents Jesus Christ engaged 
in the work of redemption. The slaving of the Pas- 
chal Lamb was to take place on the fourteenth day 
of the first month of the year, (Nisan) 

This, as I have said, represents Christ in His work 
of redeeming the race from under the condemnation 
brought on them by original sin, the sin of Adam. 
This was to be observed annually until the coming of 
Christ. Exo., 12th chapter. 



64 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT, 

The slaying of the kid of the goats represents 
Jesus Christ engaged in the work of the atonement, 
or reconciliation. Delivering the believer from the 
effects of personal sins, actual transgressions. 

The slaying of the goat preparatory to the making 
of the atonement for those of Israel, who afflicted 
their souls, took place annually on the tenth day of 
the seventh month, and was to be observed until 
Jesus should offer Himself. Lev. xxiii., 26, 29. 

The returning of Israel from Egyptian bondage 
was essential and of necessity must precede the 
making of an atonement in the Tabernacle by the 
High Priest. This could not have been done in 
Egypt. The slaying of the Paschal Lamb, including 
all ceremonies a type of redemption. The slaving 
of the goat with all the ceremonies therewith con- 
nected to make an atonement for those of Israel who 
afflicted their souls, a type of the atonement, to be 
made by Jesus Christ for all those who repent of their 
sins, and believe on Jesus. 

Thus we see the slaying of the Paschal Lamb was 
not a type of the atonement, or reconciliation, but of 
redemption. Again, the Elder refers to Rom v., 10 : 
"For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to 
God by the death of His Son ; much more, being 
reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." By the 
death of Jesus Christ, there is a manifestation of the 
attributes of God. Love, justice, mercy, wisdom, 
truth and power are conspicuously set forth in the 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT, 65 

death and resurrection of Christ. This is unfolded 
in the Gospel, and made known to the world through 
the instrumentalities of divine grace. The sinner 
being an enemy of God. learning through the Gospel 
the attributes of the Father, by the death of Jesus 
Christ, is led by the information, or light obtained, 
and the influence of the Spirit to lay aside his en- 
mity, and seek God by repentance and faith. Thus, 
coming to God by repentance and faith, through the 
meritorious righteousness of the blessed Savior, and 
the presentation of His blood to the Father, on the 
mercy seat, reconciliation is brought about, between 
God and the penitent-believing sinner, and being 
thus reconciled, " he shall be saved by His life." 

This passage, instead of proving that reconciliation 
is made on the cross, proves that it is made when an 
individual is in existence, after enmity has existed in 
his mind, and thus overthrows the proposition it is 
introduced to sustain. 

The Elder insists that the offering made by Christ 
on the cross makes reconciliation or atonement. 
The offering made by Christ was preparatory to the 
making of an atonement or reconciliation, but did 
not make it. The offerings of Israel did not make 
an atonement. The offering of the goat which typi- 
fied the body of Christ, did not make an atonement ; 
the blood of the goat was that which made an atone- 
ment when presented in the holy place in the Tab- 

5 



66 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

ernacle, and sprinkled on the mercy seat by the 
High Priest, So the blood of Christ must be pre- 
sented in Heaven, in the holy place not made with 
hands, to make an atonement. The atonement was 
not made on the cross, but is made in Heaven. 

I will now take up the subject of redemption at 
the place I had reached in my argument, when my 
time was up. In my first speech, I had stated that 
Adam, our first representative, had, by disobedience, 
brought the race under condemnation with all its 
attendant consequences ; that Jesus Christ, our sec- 
ond representative, was sent into the world to re- 
move the condemnation brought on the race by 
Adam, to the extent that mercy might be extended 
to all. 

The descendants of Adam had no volition or 
choice in regard to their nature. They did not re- 
ceive sinful natures by choice, but came into exist- 
ence with corrupt nature, with condemnation pro- 
nounced against them, as the result of sin committed 
by another. What was the effect of the sentence 
of condemnation pronounced against the race ? The 
cutting off from life. Gen. iii., 22 : " And the Lord 
God said : ' Behold, the man is become as one of us, 
to know good and evil ; and now, lest he put forth 
his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, 
and live forever." 24th verse : " So He drove out 
the man and He placed at the east of the Garden of 
Eden cherubim and a flaming sword which turned 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 67 

every way to keep the way of the tree of life." 
The sentence of death, Gen. iii., 19 : " For dust 
thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." 

Adam's posterity being sinners by nature, unable 
to live free from sin, sin being the cause of all the 
sorrows and troubles of life, as well as the means of 
bringing on death. Rom. v., 12 : " Wherefore, as 
by one man sin entered into the world, and death by 
sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all 
have sinned." And man possessing no power by 
which he can escape the impending doom, yet sus- 
ceptible of suffering intense agony and pain, all this 
brought on him by the act of another. I ask in the 
name of suffering humanity, if justice as well as 
mercy, does not demand that some provisions or 
means by which deliverance may be attained ? From 
the Scriptures I understand that the Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit decided that it was in harmony with 
the perfections of the divine nature to make pro- 
visions by which man might be delivered from his 
wretched condition. Titus, ii., 11 : " For the grace 
of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all 
men.''" 

In this text we read that the grace or favor of God 
bringeth salvation, and that this salvation hath ap- 
peared to all men. In the Emphatic Diaglott this 
passage is translated thus : " For the saving favor of 
God is manifested for all men." This quotation 
shows that God is interested in regard to the salva- 
tion of all men. 



68 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Luke xix., 10 : " For the Son of man is come to 
seek and to save that which was lost." This quota- 
tion shows that Jesus was interested in regard to 
to the salvation of all men, for all were lost. Jesus 
says, speaking in regard to the' spirit, Joh. xvi, 8 : 
" And when He is come, He will reprove the world 
of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." 
This quotation shows the Spirit is interested in re- 
gard to the salvation of the world by it reproving the 
world. 

Thus I understand that the Father, Son and Holy 
Spirit decided there should be an interposition of 
divine favor extended to the race of Adam. And 
for this purpose God sent His Son into the world. Joh. 
iii., 17 : " For God sent not His Son into the world 
to condemn the world, but that the world through 
Him might be saved." Adam, being our representa- 
tive, through us under condemnation. Jesus Christ 
came to represent the race to redeem us from the 
condemnation brought on us by Adam. The sin of 
Adam brought us under the condemnation of the 
law and shut the door of mercy. The law demanded 
the execution of its penalty, which was death. Ronn 
vi., 23 : " For the wages of sin is death." 

Christ obeyed the commands of the law, and by 
His righteousness opened the door of mercy. He 
suffered the penalty of the law, which was death, 
and gained absolute power over death, that He 
might give life to the dead. Rev, i., 18 : "I am He 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 69 

that liveth and was dead ; and, behold, I am alive 
forevermore, Amen, and have the keys of hell and of 
death" 

Christ fulfilled the law, Matt, v., 17, 18; therefore, 
no one of the race is excluded from Heaven for 
original sin. John iii., 18 : " He that believeth in 
Him is not condemned. " 

He will raise the dead and give life to all those 
whose lives were forfeited by Adam, through the 
power he gained over death by His resurrection to 
life. 1 Cor. xv., 22 : " For as in Adam all die, even 
so in Christ shall all be made alive." John v., 28 : 
" Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming, in the 
which all that are in the graves shall hear His 
voice." 29th verse : " And shall come forth, they 
that have done good unto the resurrection of life, 
and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection 
of damnation." 

We thus learn from the Scriptures that Adam 
sinned and brought condemnation on the race. That 
the penalty of law was death ; that the penalty of 
death was executed on Adam and Eve ; that the 
penalty of death has been inflicted on all who have 
lived, except those who are now living, and that it 
will be executed on those who are now living and 
may yet live ; that there were' no conditions in regard 
to the penalty ; that the penalty was pronounced 
against all, and no conditions stipulated by which 
the penalty could be evaded ; that the effect of the 



70 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

penalty would have been eternal death, without re- 
demption or deliverance from this condition, there 
can be no doubt. But Jesus Christ came to redeem 
us from this condemnation ; not to prevent the exe- 
cution of the law, not to keep the penalty from being 
inflicted, but to redeem us from the effects of the 
penalty after its execution or infliction. To give us 
life after the penalty of the law has been executed. 
This He came to do without any conditions. There 
are no stipulated conditions upon which He proposes 
to redeem man from death. He proposes to re- 
deem the entire race from death unconditionally, ac- 
cording to the good will and pleasure of God, the 
Father. But this work has only yet been partially 
accomplished. After the resurrection of Christ, 
many bodies of the saints, which slept, arose and 
came out of the graves and went into the holy city, 
and appeared unto many. Math, xxvii., 52, 53. 
Jesus has fulfilled the law, revealed the truth, 
performed miracles, died on the cross, rose from 
the dead, ascended to Heaven, received all power 
both in Heaven and on earth, (Math, xxviii., 18), 
and will accomplish the redemption of the race from 
under the condemnation brought upon it by Adam. 
This redemption is not completed, only in process 
of completion. All have not yet been resurrected 
from the dead. The law being violated, it demanded 
the execution of the penalty, without any extension 
of mercy. If there had been no interposition of di- 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 71 

vine favor, if there had been no means provided by 
which mercy could have been extended, if there had 
been no Savior given, there could have been no one 
of the race saved. But in consequence of God's 
great love, means have been provided through Christ 
by "which all may be saved. John iii., 16: "For 
God so loved the world that He gave His only be 
gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should 
not perish, but have everlasting life." 17th verse : 
" For God sent not His Son into the world to con- 
demn the world, but that the World through Him 
might be saved." 

God, in His love, has devised a scheme of salva- 
tion adapted to our condition. What is necessary 
that those who were condemned in consequence of 
the sin of Adam should have done for them that they 
may be saved. First, they must have the barrier 
interposed by the law between the mercy of God 
and them removed. In the second place, they must 
have all enmity removed from their minds or affec- 
tions, which exist towards God and His government. 
In the third place, they must be redeemed from 
death, delivered from its power by being resurrected 
unto life. I will now attempt to take up these three 
things, which are essentially necessary to be done 
for man and discuss them in their proper order. 

The law demands absolute obedience and perfect 
purity of character. The race has a corrupt nature, 
1 Cor. xv., 50-54. It does not possess perfect purity 



72 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

of character, and therefore cannot render absolute 
obedience. The law then requires that man must 
suffer the consequences. Separation from God, 
certain death, with all the pains and sorrows of life, 
unmitigated by the least favor of God. These being 
the demands and requirements of the law, the race 
are all inevitably lost without help. All are under 
the law. Rom. iii., 23 : " For all have sinned and 
come short of the glory of God.'' 1 John iii., 4 : 
" Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth the law, 
for sin is the transgression of the law." 

All being under the law, Jesus Christ came to re- 
deem all. Gal. iv., 4 : " But when the fullness of the 
time was come, God sent forth His Son, made 
of a woman, made under the law," 5th verse : " To 
redeem them that were under the law, that we might 
receive the adoption of sons." 

The question now arises, what law was man re- 
deemed from under? He was not redeemed from 
under the moral law, for that is binding on the entire 
race. The time will never come when it is not the 
duty, when the obligation does not rest on everyone 
to love God, to love his fellow-man, to be honest, 
truthful and upright in every respect. He was not 
redeemed from under the law given for our govern- 
ment in the Gospel dispensation. Men are required to 
repent, to believe in Jesus, and to perform all the 
duties of the Christian life. This will always be bind- 
ing on them in this life. What law then did Jesus 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 73 

Christ come to redeem us from under ? A law which 
was given for the government of pure beings in a 
sinless state. A law which sinless and pure beings 
could only keep. The moral law and the require- 
ments of the Gospel were given for the government 
of man after the introduction of sin. Given for the 
government of sinners, and man has not been re- 
deemed from under them, neither will he be in this 
life. 

Jesus Christ came into the world in possession of 
a sinless and pure nature, Heb. i., 4-9. He obeyed 
the law given to our first parents in Eden, the one 
they violated, and redeemed the race from under 
the Adamic law, which excluded them from the 
mercy of God, in consequence of its violation. 
When He obeyed this law, He complied with the 
demands of it, for all that were made under the law, 
Gal. iv., 5. To redeem them that were under 
the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 

When the law was fulfilled by the second repre- 
sentative of the race, the barrier interposed by the 
law, which excluded the race from mercy, was re- 
moved ; the door of mercy, which had been closed by 
the law, was thrown wide open by Jesus Christ, and 
mercy was freely offered through Him to all the 
descendants of Adam. 



74 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Christ did not only fulfill the Adamic law, but also 
the moral law, and the requirements of the Gospel 
so far as they were adapted to His condition of 
existence. Therefore, through Him mercy may be 
obtained for actual sins, by all who come in the way 
appointed. 

Acts xx., 21, testifying both to the Jews, and also 
to the Greeks, repentance towards God, and faith 
toward our Lord Jesus Christ. But notwithstanding 
the Adamic law has released its claim to exclude the 
race from the mercy of God, Jesus Christ has not yet 
redeemed the race from death. As it was necessary 
for Christ to obey the law that mercy might be freely 
extended to all, it was likewise indispensable that 
He should suffer the penalty of the law, which was 
death, and thus gain complete power over death, that 
He might give life to all. If Jesus Christ had not 
died, and rose from the dead, there could be no res- 
urrection of the dead. If Jesus Christ did not die 
for all, then He was not raised from the dead for all. 
If he was not raised for all, then all cannot be raised 
from the dead, 1 Cor., xv., 12. " Now, if Christ be 
preached that He rose from the dead, how say some 
among you that there is no resurrection of the 
dead ?" 

This quotation predicates the hope of the resur- 
rection of the dead upon the resurrection of Jesus 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 75 

Christ, 13th verse : "' But if there be no resurrection 
of the dead, then is Christ not risen/' If Christ did 
not rise, there will be no resurrection of the dead. 
20th verse, " But now is Christ risen from the dead, 
and become the first fruits of them that slept/' 
21st verse, " For since by man came death, by man 
came also the resurrection of the dead." Adam 
brought death, Jesus Christ brings life." 22d verse, 
" For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all 
be made alive." The same number that die in 
Adam, will be made alive in Christ. This could not 
be if Christ did not die for all. If Christ did not lay 
down his life for all, He could not take it up for all. 
If all will be resurrected from the dead, then Christ 
died for all, Acts xxiv., 15. And have hope toward 
God, which they themselves also allow, that there 
shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just 
and unjust. 

Christ by his righteousness in fulfilling the law, 
redeemed man from under the condemnation which 
excluded him from the mercy of God. He, by His 
sufferings, death and resurrection, has gained the 
power over death, and will in the future raise the 
dead. 

Thus redemption in the great scheme of salvation 
is of intrinsic value. We see the necessity of it in 
the incipiency of the work, and realize that it is in- 



76 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

dispensable, until the dead are raised. Redemption 
is only in process of completion. 



[Time Out.] 



CHAPTER V. 

MR. POTTER'S THIRD SPEECK.. 

Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

WISH, before I introduce any further arguments,, 



i 



to notice a few notes I took during my worthy 
opponent's last speech, or during the two speeches^ 

In my first speech I introduced a text from the 
Prophet Daniel, in which the Savior is prophesied of 
as one who is coming to finish transgressions, and to 
make an end of sin. 

My worthy brother seems to think his sins yet un- 
finished — that he did not do it. It is not done yet. 
That seems to be about his explanation of that text. 
I understand to make an end of sin, in the sense this 
text teaches, is to satisfy for sin— meet the demands 
of the law for it, — settle its claims for sin. The 
apostle says, somewhere — and if the text is ques- 
tioned I will find it — that " Christ is the end of the 
law for righteousness to every one that believeth." 
The end of the law means all the law wants. In that. 



78 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

particular, he made an end of sin, — finished trans- 
gression. 

He states that the sufferings of Christ was a pre- 
paratory step to the atonement. Now, I want to 
say this ; I want to know what part of it ? He did not 
only suffer for sin to make a preparation to atone for 
sin, but He suffered for sin itself. I introduced and 
quoted a text this morning, that set forth the idea 
very clearly, and in unmistakable terms, that He 
suffered for sin. If He suffered for sin I want to 
know if He did not atone for it, if that was not the 
penalty of the law for sin. I wish to ask it in behalf 
of my own brethren, I ask it again. Why did He 
suffer for sin, if that suffering was not the penalty of 
the law for sin? if it did not atone for sin, by meeting 
all the demands of the law for it ? I hope I will get 
an answer to that in the next speech. If I am 
wrong, I desire to be right. 

In speaking of the Paschal Lamb, he says it did 
not make an atonement. I refer you to the text in 
which Christ is said to be our passover : " Christ, our 
passover is now sacrificed for us." He did not say 
the Paschal Lamb was an offering for sin, but at the 
same time it did point to Christ as that passover 
made for us. He told us that Christ did make an 
atonement, but did not make it on the cross. Now, 
I am striving for information. I want to know when 
He did make it. When did He make it? At what 
time or place? When was it, except in His death 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 79 

on the cross ? I hope we will hear an answer to that 
question. When did He make it ? He tells us that 
the sinner must be delivered from three things. 
One is, that he must be delivered from the curse. 
Another, enmity must be removed from our nature. 

I introduced a text that has not been noticed, and 
I hope some attention will be paid to it, from the fact 
that I think it is to the point. Gal. iii., 13 : " Christ 
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being 
made a curse for us ; for it is written : " Cursed is 
every one that hangeth on a tree," What does the 
word hath mean ? What tense is that ? " Christ 
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." Now 
remember, that whatever the curse of the law is, 
Christ hath redeemed us from it. Not that it is re- 
moved in part, in that the work is begun, but that 
He hath redeemed us. It is complete. This re- 
demption is. 

Brother Dickey then wanted to know from what 
law he redeemed us. From the curse of the law, 
Brother Dickey. We are under obligations to keep 
the moral law, but we have not done it, and for our 
transgressions of it the curse was placed upon Christ. 

Now, this audience will understand me. If Jesus 
redeemed us from the curse, are we in any further 
danger of that curse ? He tells us redemption 
has begun, and to prove it, he refers us to Eph. i., 7> 
" In whom we have redemption through his blood, 
the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His 



80 DEBATE OX ATONEMENT. 

grace.'' Certainly we have redemption. We would 
not have if there was none, would we ? We could 
not have remission of sins without redemption. What 
else is forgiveness of sins ? As I have already said 
this morning, we have it now. it is complete. 

Now, let me tell what redeem means. To redeem 
is to buy back that which is forfeited or lost. That 
is the meaning of redeemed, and Christ has either 
bought us back, or else He has not. If He has not, 
He has not redeemed us. It is said : " Ye are 
bought with a price," — notice, " bought with a price" 
with the precious blood of Christ. Where did Christ 
shed His blood ? On the cross. What did it do ? 
It bought us back. Just as certain as that payment 
was complete when the blood was shed, just that 
certain redemption was complete when that blood 
was shed. 

One more remark I want to make : my brother 
missed the verse I referred him to. I referred him 
to Rom. v., 9, and he got hold of the tenth verse. I 
was almost tempted to correct him at the time, but 
did not. 

•'Much more, then, being now justified by His 
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." 
Justified by what ? By His blood. By His blood 
we are justified. Here the Apostle is talking about 
the death of Christ. He is not talking about any- 
thing else. In the preceding verse he says : i: But 
God commendeth His love toward us, in that while 
we were vet sinners. Christ died for us," 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 81 

We cannot be mistaken about that. The death of 
Christ and justification through His blood is the 
subject. Where was His blood shed ? On the 
cross. What did He do ? He justified us, that is 
what He did. That is the argument I made this 
morning, but my brother missed the text I used. I 
will now proceed with my arguments, but I wish to 
make one more remark that I overlooked ; that is, 
when I referred to our Methodist brethren this 
morning, my brother rather chided me for it. I 
simply referred to their Confession of Faith as set- 
ting forth a universal atonement. They may be 
correct in the belief of a universal atonement. I 
know they teach it in their Confession of Faith that 
the sacrifice of Christ once offered is that perfect 
redemption, propitiation and satisfaction for all the 
sins of the whole world, both original and actual. 

This is a universal atonement. Nothing short of 
it is. If any of you are under the impression that 
you believe in universal atonement, just think what 
it is. 

Now, while I refer to anybody, I do not intend to 
be personal, but if Brother Dickey or anyone else 
wishes to take the matter up, just let them do it. 

I do not hold anybody responsible for anyone 
else's belief. 

At a very remote period, according to history, 
Faustus, the leader of the Pelagians, and Sirmandus, 

6 



82 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

the .acknowldged semi-pelagian advocated the doc- 
trine that Christ died for all the race of men, and 
while they advocated that doctrine they were op- 
posed by Augustine, Prosper, Fulgentius. and other 
defenders of the truth. A discussion on the atone- 
ment entered the Roman Catholic Church, and it was 
carried on with no small degree of warmth, the Jesuits 
espousing the one side, and the Jansenists the other. 
The latter of these said : " Whoever affirms that 
Jesus Christ made expiation by His sufferings and 
death for the sins of all mankind is a semi-Pela- 
gian." 

I hope now, while I am discussing this proposi- 
tion, we will see whether there any semi-pelagians, 
according to the notion of the Jansenists, in our day, 
From the Catholics the controversy passed to the 
Protestants, and Lutherians Arminians advocating 
the cause of universal atonement ; while those who 
have since the Reformation, been known as Calvin- 
ists have contended for a limited atonement. It is 
evident, however, that Wicliffe and Huss believed in 
a limited atonement, as well as the ancient Wal- 
denses, from the fact that history teaches us that 
John Calvin inherited the doctrine of the Waldenses. 
On the extent of Christ's atonement, the two opin- 
ions that have long been agitated among the people 
are sometimes expressed by the terms definite and 
indefinite. By the former is meant that Christ died, 
satisfied divine justice and made atonement for those 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 83 

only, who will be saved. The latter means that 
Christ died, satisfied divine justice, or made atone- 
ment for all mankind without exception, as well as 
those who will never be saved as those who will be 
saved. 

However, this is not exactly the issue between me 
and my brother now, for as we have already noticed 
he denies that Christ made any atonement on the 
cross and, as a matter of course, he will not claim that 
the atonement was made by the death of Christ for all 
the race of mankind. I claim that as Christ died, 
He made atonement, and if my brother can prove 
that He died for all the race of mankind, it will have 
been proven to my satisfaction that He made an 
atonement for all the race of mankind. 

Hence, I will take the position at present of a 
definite atonement, as my side of the present position 
involves me on that side of the question. Of course 
I would not be there if I did not believe the Bible to 
teach that sentiment. I regard the death of Christ 
as the legal satisfaction to the law and justice of God, 
in behalf of elect sinners. While my brother regards 
it that Christ died for all the race of mankind, a£ he 
will show when he gets up to reply to me, my po- 
sition may be thus stated : 

That the Lord Jesus Christ made atonement to 
God by His death only for those, or the sins of those 
to whom, in the sovereign good pleasure of the Al- 
mighty, the benefits of His death shall be finally 



84 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

applied. I argue that we have a- right to conclude 
as to what the intention of God was in the atonement, 
from the use he makes of it. The fact that a thing 
is, is evidence to my mind that it was designed, es- 
pecially in the matter of the salvation of lost sinners. 

Hence, if a sinner is saved by the death of Christ, 
I take it for granted that Christ necessarily atoned 
for the sins of that sinner. On the other hand, if a 
sinner is not saved from his sins by the atonement of 
Christ, I take it for granted as a necessary conse- 
quence that the atonement was not made for that 
man. I argue that point, from the very fact that 
atonement means satisfaction for sin or an expiation 
of guilt. 

If Christ satisfied the divine law for the sins of all 
the race of mankind, I never could see any reason 
why all the race of mankind should not be saved. 
Or, in other words, I never could see why any of them 
should sink down to eternal perdition to reap the just 
retribution for their sins, if Christ has made satisfac- 
tion to the law for the same sins. If I believed in a 
universal atonement I would necessarily believe in a 
universal salvation ; if I believed in a universal sal- 
vation, I would necessarily believe that there had 
been a universal atonement. As only a portion of 
mankind are said to be saved, I conclude that only 
a portion of the race of mankind were atoned for by 
the Savior. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 85 

If God the Father gave His Son to die for sinners, 
He must have had some sort of design in the matter, 
and there can be only three positions taken. God 
must have designed or intended that His Son should 
make atonement by His death either for some of the 
sins of all the race, or for all of the sins of some men, 
or for all the sins of all the race. I know of no per- 
son that holds the first of these positions to be true. 

Perhaps it would not be amiss for us to notice the 
religious views of Christendom upon this subject, just 
for one moment. We have already referred to the 
20th Article of the M. E. Church Confession of Faith, 
which teaches that the offering of Christ once made 
is that perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfac- 
tion for all the sins of the whole world, both original 
and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for 
sin but that alone. This seems to be the doctrine of 
the M. E. Church, as set forth in her Article of 
faith. Now, bear in mind, this Article does not 
teach that the offering of Christ is a partial redemp- 
tion, or a partial satisfaction, or a partial propitiation 
for sins, but a perfect redemption. Not for a part 
of the sins of all the world of mankind, nor all the 
sins of a part of mankind, but for all the sins of the 
whole world, both original and actual. 

Then, if atonement means expiation, satisfaction 
or reparation, made by giving an equivalent for an 
injury, or by doing or suffering that which is receiv- 
ed in satisfaction for an offense or an injury, and if 



86 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

expiation means extinction of guilt, then according to 
this article all the sins of the whole world have been 
atoned for, and all the guilt of the whole world has 
been extinguished and a universal salvation of the 
whole world is the only just and legitimate result. If 
Christ has atoned for all the race, he has done just 
what the Methodists have said in their Article for 
this word " expiate" means atonement. Atonement 
means to expiate sin. To expiate sin means to ex- 
tinguish guilt and nothing else is required to be done, 
for Christ has atoned for all the sins of the whole 
world, both original and actual. 

The doctrine of this Article is the doctrine of a 
universal atonement. But if we should undertake to 
find a man who advocates this doctrine, even among 
our Methodist friends, we would find them few and 
far between. While almost all the Arminian people 
of this age find great fault with the doctrine of limit- 
ed or definite atonement and claim, at the same time, 
that they believe in a universal atonement, we find 
they believe in no atonement at all, and as we have 
already seen since this discussion commenced, that 
our worthy brother does not believe that the atone- 
ment was made on the cross, I have my serious 
doubts whether he will believe in any atonement at 
all, before this debate closes. 

Now, I wish to notice that, instead of believing 
that Jesus Christ made an atonement, the people 
argue entirely differently now. I heard a good 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 87 

Christain man say once, that he would affirm that 
" Christ died for all men, so as to make salvation 
possible for all men." If Christ only died for them 
in such a manner as to make salvation possible, He 
did not atone for their sins, for to atone means to 
expiate, and expiate means to extinguish guilt. 

Such a death of Christ as that for all of the race, 
would simply be an atonement for none. All who 
advocate the doctrine that Christ died for all the 
race must admit that His death and sufferings were 
not an atonement for all their sins, or else admit 
that all the race are saved. Another Methodist 
divine says : " It is evident the sufferings of Christ 
were not in amount what the law demanded, as the 
punishment for sin, for this would have consigned His 
humanity to torments forever." On the principle, then, 
that Christ died for all, if the validity of the atone- 
ment depends upon the amount of his sufferings, all 
must be unconditionally saved, and there could be 
no such thing as penitence, faith and pardon, inas- 
much as the punishment was changed from the 
guilty to the innocent. 

The penalty due to sin is endless torment in hell ; 
but Christ did not suffer endless torment in hell ; 
therefore, He did not suffer in amount what all the 
impenitent, or all the world must have suffered. 

The sacrifice of Christ was such as God could ac- 
cept and at the same time be just, and the justifier 
of him that believeth in Jesus. But this does not 



88 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

make the salvation ot all men a necessary result of 
the atonement, but merely a possible consequence. " 
Jimeson on the 25 articles, p.p. 96-97. 

Now. let it be understood that this is the manner 
in which all those who pretend to believe in a uni- 
versal atonement view the matter. We claim it to 
be no atonement at all, and charge on our Arminian 
brethren that they believe in no atonement at all, 
instead of a universal atonement. 

Mr. Jimeson concedes this point : that if Christ's 
sufferings were sufficient tp meet the demands of 
the law, then all the race would be unconditionally 
saved. 

It occurs to me that any reasonable person would 
admit a universal salvation as a necessary conse- 
quence of universal atonement, or else admit a 
definite atonement consequential to a definite salva- 
tion, or else admit salvation without any atonement 
at all. The learned and celebrated Dr. Jenkyns, 
quoted by Jimeson, says : M The sacrificial offering 
of Christ is the expedient substituted in the place of 
the literal infliction of the threatened penalty, so as 
to supply the moral government just and good 
grounds for dispensing favors to an offender. 

This doctrine seems to be that the sacrifice of 
Christ is not a perfect satisfaction for sin, but a kind 
of substitute that gives God an excuse to pardon 
sinners without infringing on the rights of His 
moral government. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 89 

But the Apostle tells us : " But now once in the 
end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin 
by the sacrifice of Himself." Hebrews ix., 26. 

If Christ, by the sacrifice of Himself, put away 
sin, the Father did not only have an excuse to par- 
don the sinner, but He had no justifiable excuse not 
to pardon him. 

But let us hear Jimeson again : " God has pro- 
vided the atonement of Christ as the guard against 
infliction of unconditional condemnation upon sin- 
ners ; and in this atonement is found the only means 
and the only reason by which the moral government 
of God is supplied with just grounds for dispensing 
pardon to the truly penitent offender." P. 95. 

This does not only teach that the death of Christ 
gives good excuse to save the penitent, but it was 
necessary to give God an excuse to condemn the 
impenitent. We frequently hear that the death of 
Christ leaves impenitent sinners without any excuse. 
I have often wondered if the death of Christ was 
necessary to leave the impenitent sinner without ex- 
cuse. If the death of Christ was necessary to leave 
the impenitent sinner without any excuse, then with- 
out the death of Christ, impenitent sinners would 
have an excuse. Oh, what a thought ! If a man is 
guilty and unjust, and Christ does not come into the 
world and die for him, he, is excusable for being 
guilty. That is the doctrine. If he is excusable for 
being guilty, he is not guilty. That is all there is of 



90 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

that, and if he is not guilty, he does not need the 
atonement of Christ to save him. 

The sinner needs atonement to be made on rhe 
ground that he is guilty, and that he has no excuse. 
God needs no excuse to damn the impenitent, from 
the very fact that if a man is guilty, he has incurred 
the just penalty of the righteous and holy law by his 
guilt, and he never can be saved from the just 
penalty of that law only by suffering the penalty, or 
else some one must suffer it for him. 

But I wish to show what the Mission Baptists' 
doctrine is upon this subject, by giving an idea 
taught among them. The Missionary Baptists main- 
tain the same doctrine. In speaking of the death of 
Christ, one of their members said : " His death does 
not make the salvation of all men sure, but simply 
makes it possible." — Baptist Banner, Aug. 18, 1886. 

This is the manner in which all the Arminian 
world regard the atonement. They say they believe 
in a universal atonement, when in reality they believe 
in no atonement at all. Atonement means satisfac 
tion for sin, and if the death of Christ gives perfect 
satisfaction for sin, and, as they say, if all the sins 
of the whole world, both original and actual, then it 
does not follow that God must send sinners to eter- 
nal perdition for the same sins, after satisfaction has 
been given. If the death of Christ did make perfect 
satisfaction for all the sins of all the whole world, 
both original and actual, there are no sins of men — 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 91 

there are no unbelievers or impenitent sinners — there 
are no sins for which there has not been perfect sat- 
isfaction made. If perfect satisfaction has been 
made by the death of Christ, for all the sins of the 
whole world, both original and actual, how can the 
satisfaction be made more perfect by sending the 
sinner to hell for his sins and punish him forever ? 

If the sinner must be sent to hell for sin, it must 
be because justice demands it ; if justice does de- 
mand it, it must be because the death of Christ did 
not make satisfaction for sin. If He did not make 
satisfaction for sin, then He did not atone for sin. 

[Time Out.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



MR. DICKEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 

Brethten, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I WISH to notice the word hath. He quoted, 
u Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the 
law, being made a curse for us," Gal. iii. He argued 
from this text that our redemption from the law was 
completed on the cross. This cannot be true, as we 
had not existed at that time. We could not have 
been redeemed so long before we existed. Christ 
hath redeemed us, means that our redemption is in 
process of completion — it is not completed yet. Our 
redemption will not be complete until the resurrec- 
tion. In Rom. viii., 22, 23, we read, "For we know 
that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth ii> 
pain together until now. And not only they, but 
also ourselves, which have the first fruits of the Spirit ; 
even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for 
the adoption, to-wit, the redemption of our body." 



94 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Our redemption then, did not take place on the 
cross, for we will not be actually redeemed, until our 
bodies are raised from the dead. Hath redeemed 
us, then, does not mean, as he thinks it does. How 
could you and I have been redeemed when we had no 
being ? 

But I wish to notice this passage — " hath chosen 
us in Him before the foundation of the world." "In 
Him" You see the very same " hath" precedes 
chosen that precedes the word "redeemed" used in 
the passage of Scripture he mentioned, " hath chos- 
en us in Him before the foundation of the world." 
Adam was not created, then, nor Eve, nor anybody 
else, before the foundation of the world. How, then, 
was it done ? Were they literally chosen, or pros- 
pectively chosen ? From the fact that we were rep- 
resented, we were chosen for our belief in the truth ; 
" through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the 
truth. 

Perhaps I had better get that passage and read it 
at some other time. I do not think just now where 
to turn to it. But He hath redeemed us prospective- 
ly ; we are not yet redeemed from under the curse of 
the law. If so, why is it that any person dies ? The 
law condemns to death, and we see that every man 
dies. The brother said that — that the curse of the 
law was the cutting off from life. Thus the penalty 
of the law is death, and if we are redeemed, we are 
redeemed from death, and must not die. Why is it 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 95 

that .men commit sin ? We see that men do con- 
tinually transgress, consequently there can be but 
one reasonable conclusion, and that is that 
Jesus is engaged in the work of redemption and 
when that is complete, that we shall be relieved from 
sin ; that is, those who believe in Christ. He does 
not redeem those that do not believe in Him. The 
entire race is under the curse brought upon them by 
our first parents. That curse is death, and the re- 
demption will finally bring us from death. 

Then he asks : if He did not make an atonement, 
why was it that He suffered ? It was not the suffer- 
ing ; suffering does not always make an atonement. 
Our race has been continually suffering, yet they 
have never been able to atone for their sins. Simply 
suffering cannot establish justice, and remove the 
penalty of the law, and neither did the sufferings of 
Jesus remove the penalty of the law, nor redeem us 
from condemnation, but this work is in process of 
completion. This suffering, we see, was only a part 
of the work, although it was necessary to be per- 
formed. This atonement is not to be made by the 
shedding of the blood, but by the blood it is to be 
made. It is not said that it was made at the time 
•that the blood was shed, because the Scriptures 
teach us that it was made at a different time. 

Then he refers to the Paschal Lamb. It is said 
that this is a type of Christ. 



96 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

This type of Christ suffered and died, but its suf- 
ferings did not make an atonement. Its sufferings 
is a type of Christ's sufferings, therefore the suffer- 
ings of Christ did not make an atonement. Then 
he says Christ has bought us back from under the 
law. Well, in a certain sense that is true ; it is in 
process of completion. If we are bought back from 
under the law, why are we punished if we fail to 
obey it ? This work is in process of completion, to 
be realized at some future time, but at the present 
time we have not been released from the penalty of 
the law ; we have not been released from sin and 
death, or from the house of bondage. 

Next we will see what is referred to when he says 
they are rescued or brought back. The race, he 
says, is to be delivered from persecution, or the 
house of bondage, by the death of Christ. The hu- 
man family is to be rescued from the grave. That 
is what is referred to. But he says we are justified 
by His blood. I have not denied that the blood 
must be shed. I think the Bible teaches it, that by 
His blood we are saved ; but, at the same time, it 
does not teach that it was done on the cross. He 
teaches that it was done on the cross. That makes 
the salvation of the individual depend altogether « 
on the death of Christ — makes it all depend on the 
death of Christ, that took place 1,800 years ago on 
the cross. Suppose there was no cross. Then, ac- 
cording to my brother, as Christ died to make a n 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 97 

atonement, there would be no atonement without 
this death. Then if there was no cross at all, if 
Christ died, the elect will be saved without it as well 
as with it. This congregation will understand that 
if there was no cross, there can be no deliverance if 
it be true that Jesus Christ on the cross made an 
atonement for the elect. But if it was by His death 
alone that the atonement was made, whether the 
work is performed on the cross or not, those for 
whom He died will be saved, regardless of whether 
there was any cross or whether there was not. 

My brother differs with the Apostle Paul, and the 
congregation can take their choice between Brother 
Potter and the Apostle Paul. One says the elect 
will be saved regardless of the cross, and the other 
asys they will not. I have begun to think my 
brother has overlooked these things. He says the 
salvation of the elect depend on an act that was per- 
formed on the cross, when the Bible plainly teaches 
that if that was all they would not have been saved. 
1 Corinthians, xv, 5 14, "And if Christ be not raised, 
your faith is vain ; you are yet in your sins." Sup- 
pose Jesus Christ died on the cross as he says He 
did, suppose He made an atonement on the cross as 
he says He did, yet the Apostle Paul says so plainly 
there can be no mistake, " If Christ be not raised, 
your faith is vain ; you are yet in your sins." Would 
we still be in our sins if the work of Jesus Christ had 



98 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

been completed on the tree of the cross ? Then the 
apostle goes on to say : "Then they also which are 
fallen asleep in Christ are perished." 

It is said of the death of Christ, that He had died, 
the just for the unjust, etc. In His death He per- 
formed one of the great steps in the scheme of salva- 
tion ; but the Apostle Paul declares that, if Christ be 
not raised from the dead, the work on the cross 
would have been unavailing to save any individual 
from sin. 

So it is most plain and evident that the atonement 
was not completed on the cross, and that my brother 
is wrong and the Bible is right. No mistake about 
it. I would go on here and read other passages, but 
that is all that need to be said on that subject, or 
that part of the subject. 

Well then, he says that Christ met the law; fulfill- 
ed all the demands of the law against the human 
family. 

Elder Potter: — I didn't say against the human 
family, but against the elect. 

Elder Dickey: — Very well, that Jesus Christ met 
the law for the elect and fulfilled every single de- 
mand that the law made against men. Well now, if 
I am wrong with that statement, it was given just as he 
has made it. But if I am wrong I want you to correct 
me. I understand then that I have stated it correctly. 

Then if Jesus Christ in His suffering on the cross 
did pay all the demands, I want to know why it is 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 99 

that the elect die. The penalty of the law was 
death, and they just continue to die — the elect and 
everybody else ; no one escapes it. My brother's 
position must be false in that respect. It cannot be 
true that Jesus Christ has met the law for the sins of 
the elect, and yet they continue under the law, when 
they had been redeemed from it on the cross. Yet 
this is his position, and he has no chance to get out of 
it. He has the redemption in an act that passed 
1,800 years ago. 

Therefore, if it was completed, then we ought to 
have Paul preaching with us to-day ; we ought to 
have a great deal better preaching than we can do. 
We should have the apostles with us to-day, preach- 
ing to the children of men, telling them what was 
necessary for them to do. We should have had 
much better preaching than we are having, if this 
doctrine was true. But Paul died, Peter died, and 
all the rest of them died, so far as we have any 
knowledge 

Therefore, his position is most evidently incorrect ; 
that Jesus Christ on the cross, 1,800 years ago, re- 
lieved man from all his sin. This release has not yet 
come, but is in process of completion, and if my 
brother had said that it will be completed with the 
resurrection of the dead, but not without this impor- 
tant part, then I could have given him my hand on 
that doctrine. But that is not his position. 



100 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Then, in regard to eternal punishment : Suppose 
that Jesus Christ did meet the demands of the law 
for the elect. What were the demands ? Death. 
What else ? Banishment from God. What else ? To 
be turned into hell. What else ? To be burned in the 
lake of fire and brimstone. Now, if Jesus Christ met 
the demands of the law for the elect, did He go there 
to be burned eternally ? If not, why is it that He 
did not suffer the same kind of punishment that they 
must have suffered ? To meet the demands of the 
law for the transgression of the law, could Jesus 
Christ have paid the debt if He did not suffer all 
the penalty when He became the substitute ? He 
suffered as a substitute ; that is, He took the place 
of the elect, of those who were unjust. 

If the debt was paid for them, Tesus Christ must 
have paid it. If He paid it, it released every one 
from punishment, from the sorrows and difficulties 
of this life, and Jesus Christ must have suffered all 
the punishments, which were eternal. But we see 
the elect are not released from the cares and sor- 
rows of this life. I cannot agree. 

We were speaking in regard to Jesus Christ re- 
deeming them from under the law. " God sent 
forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the 
law, to redeem them that were under the law." That 
passage means this : that our first representatives 
had brought us under the law, by transmitting to us 
sinful natures. Thus we are not sinners by any 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 101 

fault of our own, or by our own will. We are placed 
under the law, and we are incapable of complying 
with the demands of the law, so God, in His justice 
and infinite wisdom, decided that there should be 
an interposition of divine mercy ]esus Christ, be- 
coming our second representative, undertakes to re- 
deem man, and to finally redeem him from the curse 
that was brought upon the entire race by the trans- 
gression of our first representatives. Now, did He 
do it ? My brother claims that He did what He 
came to do, and therefore, that the elect are now r re- 
deemed. 

We will turn to Romans v., 18, and see what 
items we can get from that upon the subject : 
" Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation, even so by the 
righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all 
men unto justification of life. " The offense 
spoken of was Adam's offense. My brother will not 
deny that. Our first parent committed sin, and he 
was condemned, and judgment came upon all men 
to condemnation. They all commit sin, and are 
all condemned, and the penalty of sin, which is the 
transgression of the law, is — death. No one will 
dispute that the whole race is condemned in conse- 
quence of the transgressions of one, that one being 
Adam. 

Let us see what Jesus Christ did. He performed 
several great steps in the scheme of salvation, which 



102 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

is now in process of completion — it is not yet com- 
plete — " even so, by the righteousness of one, the 
free gift come upon all men, etc. " 

The one now mentioned undertakes to rescue the 
race from the condition in which the first represen- 
tative's transgression places them. This one is Je- 
sus Christ. He stands as a representative of the 
race, just the same as Adam was ; He is just as 
much a representative of the race as Adam was. 
Adam brought us under the condemnation of the 
law. What does Jesus Christ do? — "even so by 
the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all 
men." What was the " free gift ? " It was requital 
from the sins that had been brought upon men by the 
sins of our first representatives. This free gift was 
to be given unconditionally on the part of God ; noth- 
ing required of men, in order that they be released 
from under the law ; therefore, it is called the free gift, 
the releasing of all the human family, every man, every 
woman that lives or has lived on the face on the 
earth are to be released from condemnation brought 
upon us by the transgression of our first representa- 
tives. It is not yet complete. When will it be ? At 
the time that Jesus Christ brings forth the dead from 
all their dusty beds and gives them life — that life 
that will be eternal ; He will give it to all who be- 
lieve in their Lord, Jesus Christ. While this is 
true, we believe that Jesus Christ is doing ex- 
actly what God sent Him to do — what it is His will 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 103 

that He should do. This Jesus is able to do, for 
all power is given unto Him, both in Heaven and in 
earth. The will of God is to send Him to redeem 
those that were under the law, and as He succeeds 
in redeeming them, that is carrying out the plan 
of redemption that will ultimately redeem man from 
the curse — that is, all those who believe on Him. 

Now, my brother will perhaps reply to this, that 
the redemption is of the elect, but that the race at 
large is left out. Now, " all men " does not mean 
only part of the race, but it means that everybody 
has a chance to be saved, and the only way I can 
see for them to be saved, is for them to believe on 
Jesus Christ, and if it only embraces a part of the 
human family, they are not all interested in the 
death of Jesus Christ. 

Let us read the text : " Therefore, as by the of- 
fense of one, judgment came upon all men to con- 
demnation/' — "all men" certainly means all the 
race — " even so, by the righteousness of one, the 
free gift came upon all men unto justification of 
life." This certainly would include all the race, at 
least, if the first includes all the race, the last most 
certainly must also. If the first includes only a part 
of the race, the last includes only a part of the race. 
If a part is left out, they did not need any redeem- 
ing ; consequently, you may take which side you 
please of the question, you will find that Jesus Christ 
has accomplished His work for as many as were 
brought under the law by Adam's transgression. 



104 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Now, in confirmation of this we will read the next 
verse of the same chapter, Romans v., 19: " For, as 
by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, 
so by the obedience of one, shall many be made 
righteous. " There is the same " many" to be made 
righteous as the " many " that were made sinners. 
Whether it was the entire race or not, just as 
many are to be made righteous as were made 
sinners. " E^en so, by the righteousness of one, 
the free gift came upon all men, " or " so, by the 
obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. " 
Just as many as were made sinners by Adam, just 
that manv are to be made righteous bv Christ. If 
my brother says that that includes the race, they 
will all be saved. In connection with this thought, 
if Jesus Christ redeems men from the curse of the 
law ; if He redeems them from under the law, 
redeems them from the curse that rests on them ; if 
there is a curse resting upon an individual, it stays 
there until he pays the penalty of the crime. But 
the curse does not rest upon him before he commits 
the crime. 

To illustrate this point, we will suppose that an 
individual commits a crime for which he will be put 
in the State penitentiary ; but some individual, in 
consequence of the power that was given him by the 
Governor of the State of Illinois was to perform 
some act by virtue of which the individual is to be 
released from prison. Now, whenever this individual 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 105 

is released from prison, he will no longer be condemn- 
ed by the law. He will stand justified by the law. 

Therefore, when an individual is released, he is 
free ; just as free as if he never had been >ent to pris- 
on. Just so it is with the sinner. If he is redeemed, he 
stands just as free from the law as he did before he 
had sinned. He is not condemned any longer by 
the law, because the law is satisfied. But we find 
that many were made sinners. I think it was the 
entire race that was made sinners, but if it was not, 
those that were not made sinners were free anyhow. 
If part were made sinners, Jesus Christ made atone- 
ment for that part, and if He made an atonement 
for only the elect, the elect were all that needed it, 
for He died for the ungodly. 

There is another passage of Scripture I have been 
thinking of presenting for our consideration : " He 
that believeth not is condemned already." Jesus 
Christ says that he that believeth not on Him is con- 
demned. This is the language of the Savior, and He 
knew how to express Himself, to be correctly under- 
stood and comprehended. He says : u He that be- 
lieveth on me is not condemned," then He goes on to 
tell why we are condemned. He does not say we 
are condemned because we are descendants of 
Adam, or because Adam did wrong, but He says : 
" He that believeth on me is not condemned, but he 
that believeth not is condemned already." Why ? 
Because he does not believe in the name of the only 
begotten Son of God. 



106 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

That is the just cause of condemnation. Every 
man is commanded to believe on Jesus, and every 
man that believes on Him shall be saved. " For God 
so loved the world that He gave His only begotten 
Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might not per- 
ish, but have everlasting life. ,> 

Now, whoever believeth is condemned not, but they 
that are condemned are condemned for not believing 
on the Lord Jesus Christ, as forgiving their sins. We 
have all committed sin; being sinners,we cannot avoid 
committing sin. But there is a remedy. We are 
invited to repent of the sins we have committed, and 
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and receive recon- 
ciliation or atonement, ac the very instant that we 
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Enmity is remov- 
ed from the heart of the individual, for he that be- 
lieves on the Lord is in a justified state. " He that 
believeth not on me is condemned already." 

Thus the condemnation of the sinner is for the lack 
of faith, for the lack of obeying the teachings of 
God's word, which plainly tells us what to do, and it 
is our duty to do it. He tells us to keep the law. 
We are under obligations to do so. We are imper- 
fect ; we are incapable ; we cannot fulfill the de- 
mands of the perfect law. But if we are not able to 
do this, if we believe on Him He will save us, not 
withstanding we lack the ability to comply with the 
demands of the perfect law. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 107 

We will notice Genesis xxii., 18, " And in thy seed 
shall all the nations of the earth be blessed ; because 
thou hast obeyed my voice.' , Was the blessing pro- 
nounced upon all the nations of the earth ? " In thy 
seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." 
He does not say every individual shall be blessed, 
but the world of mankind at large ; it mentions na- 
tions, but not individuals, and says they shall be 
blessed ; blessed as nations. We are all to receive 
blessing as a nation, and are all to be brought back 
in reach of life. 

I tell you this is no small favor. Although we are 
to undergo all the sufferings of this life, Jesus Christ 
places us in a condition which we may partake of the 
tree of life and come into the joys of eternal life. I 
say this is no small favor, secured for us by the ac- 
tion of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

[Time Out.] 



CHAPTER VJI. 



MR. POTTER'S FOURTH SPEECH. 

•Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I WISH to notice the word has or hath. " Christ 
hath redeemed us." I want it understood that 
Christ " hath," which means He " has." My broth- 
er introduced the text : " hath chosen us." I be- 
lieve that too, my brother, " as He hath chosen us 
in Him before the foundation of the world." It is 
not necessary for a people to exist in order for God 
to choose them. He knew them from the beginning 
as well as He does now. He could choose them 
then just as well as He could choose them now. 
Hence, it is in the past tense. " Christ hath re- 
deemed us from the curse of the law." Not from 
the law. my brother, but from the curse of the law % 
That is what the text says. -^ 

On the sufferings of Christ, I want to know if 
Christ suffered for sin ; what was it for, if it was not 



110 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

to suffer the penalty of the law due to sin ; to an- 
swer to God for them ; to justify us ; when He suffered 
for our sins, what was it for ? This is the question I 
asked him. I do not read of any other suffering 
only for sin. I would like to know what He suffered 
for if He did not suffer for sin. 

Then he charges me with something I am not 
guilty of. 

Mr. Dickey": I did not aim to do it, if I did. 

Mr. Potter : He charges me with saying that the 
death of Christ saves people, that they are saved by 
that alone. I did not quote a text that reads that 
way. I quoted Rom. v., 9 : " Much more then, be- 
ing now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from 
wrath through Him." Not that we have been saved 
from wrath through Him. I also quoted another text, 
the very next verse : " For if, when we were ene- 
mies, we were reconciled to God by the death of 
His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be 
saved by His life." 

I argue from that, that it was the death of His 
Son that reconciled us to God. We shall be saved, 
not by His death alone, but by His life. I hope 
my brother will understand me, and not accuse me 
of believing that we are saved by the death of 
Christ. We are saved by His life. 

But in regard to the atonement, I believe from 
this verse that the reconciliation was made by the 
death of Christ ; not by His life. While if recon- 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. Ill 

ciliation was made by His death, then we shall be 
saved by His life. That is my argument. 

It was neeessary that all this be said on that par- 
ticular point. Of course, he will not reply to me 
correctly, unless he understands me correctly. 

Then he wants to know if Christ goes to hell to 
suffer the penalty of the law, for that is a part of the 
penalty. I told you he did not believe in any atone- 
ment at all. If he believes in atonement for sin, he 
is going to have Christ sent to hell to suffer endless 
punishment, going to have Him bear all the punish- 
ment, for sinners cannot be saved unless ail the just 4 
penalty be paid. That is his doctrine. That is the 
very doctrine implied— if Christ suffered, he must 
suffer everything that the law demanded of sinners. 
There is no atonement in his position. 

I think this audience can see that 1 believe in an 
atonement. You have heard people object to me and 
my brethren, because we do not believe in an atone 
ment for everybody. We are away ahead of everybody 
else, now, for they do not believe in an atonement at 
all. They do not believe in any at all. 

I overlooked one of my notes in my last speech. 
I want my brother to take it down. What does the 
apostle mean when he says : " Christ put away sin 
by the sacrifice of Himself?" If He put away sin, 
did He leave it where it was ? Remember, He put 
it away by the sacrifice of Himself — not by something 
else. He removed it — put it away. 



112 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Then he quoted Rom. v., 18, 19, but unfortunate- 
ly it was the wrong text for him. The death of 
Christ is not mentioned in the whole text. He 
brought up the death of Christ, as being referred 
to in the nineteenth verse. What was the apostle 
talking about ? The offense of one man — Adam, 
and of all men — Adam's posterity, by which con- 
demnation was brought upon all. Even so, by what ? 
the death ? no, by the righteousness of one the free 
gift came upon all men. This has allusion to the 
righteousness of Christ, while He lived in the world. 
^Righteousness works of obedience to the law. 
While He lived in the world, He lived by the law un- 
til His death, " the free gift came upon all men unto 
justification of life." ' This free gift was righteous- 
ness. That righteousness is imputed to sinners. 

As the sin of Adam was inherited by his family, 
they all received the curse — all of Adam's family, so 
Christ's righteousness was inherited by all of His 
(Christ's) family. Let us see if we can illustrate : 
In 1 Cor. xv., we read, " As is the earthy, such are 
they also that are earthy, and as is the heavenly, such 
are they also that are heavenly." The earthy is 
Adam, and all that are earthy are like Adam. 
" And as is the heavenly," (that is Christ's), " such 
are they also that are heavenly." Who are like 
Christ ? His. Who are like Adam ? His. Each 
one represents his own family, and that is all there 
is in it. The offering of Christ is not mentioned in 
Rom. v., 18, 19. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 113 

I would like to hear about this universal atone- 
ment. There is no offering in those two verses at 
all. Look at that text again, my brother, and study 
it a little more closely, before you bring it up to 
prove that Christ died for everybody. It is speak- 
ing of His obedience and righteousness. 

Notice my arguments in your next. I will now 
proceed with my arguments. 

While the Arminians claim that Christ died for 
all the race, they deny that He atoned. for all the 
sins of any, so they do not believe in universal 
atonement. 

I do not believe that Christ died for all the race 
of men, but I do believe that He did atone for all 
the sin of those for whom He died. And before I 
pass I wish to notice Mr. Wesley on this point. In 
answer to the question : " If Christ died for all the 
world, why will not all be saved ? " Mr. Wesley says : 
" I answer, because they believe not in the only be- 
gotten Son of God. Because God called and they 
refused to answer ; He stretched out His hand and 
they regarded not ; He counseled them, but they 
would none of His counsels ; He reproved them, but 
they set at naught all His reproofs ; they followed 
lying vanities, and forsook their own mercies ; they 
denied the Lord that bought them, and so brought 
upon themselves swift destruction, and because they 
received not the love of the truth, that they might 



114 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

be saved ; therefore, (if you would know wherefore), 
God gave them up to believe a lie, and to be damned. 
' How often,' saith our Lord, ' would I have gath. 
ered you together, and ye would .not. Ye would 
not.' Here is the plain reason why all men are not 
saved. " For God promiseth no man salvation 
whether he will or no : but leaveth them to everlast 
ing destruction who will not obey the gospel." Doc- 
trinal tracts, pages 152-3. 

Mr. Wesley here mentions a whole catalogue of 
sins that do not belong to the whole world, and are 
neither original nor actual, or Christ did not satisfy 
for them. They are sins for which men are damned, 
and the Methodists say : " The offering of Christ 
once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation 
and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, 
both original and actual, and there is none other 
satisfaction for sin but that alone." 

Men are not damned for sins for which there has 
been perfect satisfaction made. Hence, if men are 
damned for the sins mentioned by Mr. Wesley, those 
sins were never atoned for by Jesus Christ. 

I simply believe that man is entirely free from the 
claims of law for all the sins for which Christ made 
perfect satisfaction. 

•* Shall not the Judge of the whole earth do right ? 
A God of truth, and without iniquity, just and right 
is He." Reason, revelation and providence all con- 
cur in attesting this perfection of His nature. The 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 115 

Supreme Being gives to every one his due. This 
principle cannot be violated in a single instance. 
He cannot, according to this, either remit sin with- 
out satisfaction, or punish sin for which satisfaction 
has been received. The one is as inconsistent with 
perfect equity as the other. If the punishment for 
sin has been borne, the remission of the offense fol- 
lows, of course. The principles of rectitude sup- 
pose this, nay, peremptorily demand it. Justice 
could not be satisfied without it. Agreeably to this 
reasoning, it follows that the death of Christ, being 
a legal satisfaction for sin, all for whom He died, 
must enjoy the remission of their sins. I have al- 
ways understood, that if Christ died for sin^ He 
atoned for sin. But it seems to be the case now 
that men will argue that He died for sin, and yet 
did not make a perfect satisfaction for the sins for 
which He died. The Apostle Peter says : " For 
Christ also hath once suffered for sin, the just for 
the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put 
to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 
1 Peter iii,, 18. 

This text tells us in so many words, that He suf- 
fered for sin. How He suffered for sins, yet did not 
atone for the sins for which He suffered, is a prob- 
lem that I am not able to solve. What could have 
been His object in suffering for those sins and yet 
not atoning for them is something I have never yet 
heard any man explain. 



116 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

To say that Jesus Christ died for every member 
of the human race, but that He did not suffer for all 
their sins, does no man any good unless He atoned 
for their sins. There is no comfort or consolation 
in the thought that Christ died for my sins, if after 
His death I am still justly exposed to the divine 
vengeance of God's holy law for the same sins. In 
conversation with a Methodist minister, once, on the 
subject of limited or universal atonement, I asked 
him if he believed the 20th article of his Confession 
of Faith. He answered, he did. " Well," said I, 
" it reads that the sacrifice of Christ once offered, is 
that perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction 
for all the sins of the whole race, both original and 
actual. Do the terms 'the whole world' embrace 
all the race of Adam ? " He said yes. " Well," 
said I, " how is it that you are not a universalian ? " 

If Jesus Christ did make a perfect satisfaction for 
all the sins of all the race of mankind, both original 
and actual, what else can they be guilty of for which 
they must be sent to eternal perdition ? Does it not 
cover every one that they can possibly be guilty of ? 
He answered that their position was that in the 
death of Christ, salvation was offered to the sinner 
on the condition of faith — that if the sinner would 
believe, he should be saved ; but if he refused to 
believe he should be damned. I wanted to know if 
unbelief is sin. He said it was. Well, if Christ 
atoned for all the sins, both original and actual, 






DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 117 

did He not atone for the sin of unbelief as well as 
other sins ? 

I now appeal to you to-day, my friends, if Christ 
made an atonement for all the sins of all the people, 
both original and actual, and atonement means sat- 
isfaction or expiation of guilt, have not all those sins 
been satisfied for ? If they have been satisfied for, 
on what ground will any of them be forever lost ? 
What must they suffer in eternal perdition for ? It 
must necessarily be for the very same sins that Je- 
sus Christ atoned for. Our Arminian brethren seem 
to see this point. Mr. Jimeson, a man we have 
already quoted, saw this point and denied that Jesus 
Christ made perfect satisfaction for all the *sins of 
ail the people ; but it was a kind of substitute, that 
gave God an excuse that would justify Him in ex- 
tending pardon to the believer. In that case, the 
sinner is saved when satisfaction is not rendered at 
all. In that case justice is set aside. If the sinner 
is not saved upon the principle of justice and equity, 
he goes to Heaven guilty, although pardoned. 

There is such a thing as a man being pardoned, 
yet being guilty, but it cannot be in the case of the 
salvation of sinners, that they must enter Heaven 
guilty. This doctrine that says that Christ died for 
all the race of men, yet did not atone for their sins, 
but simply gives God an excuse to extend pardon to 
the penitent, is the doctrine that says sinners are 
saved in a state of guilt, and that the Lord pardons 



118 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

them and takes them to Heaven, The Gos- 
pel represents Jesus Christ as having put away 
sin ; removed it ; did not leave it where it was be- 
fore ; and my position is — and that is the position 
and doctrine of the atonement of Christ — that when 
He satisfied for sin, a just law will never call for 
satisfaction again for the same offense. I want it 
distinctly understood that I am contending for the 
atonement, not simply for the sacrifice that makes 
no satisfaction ; not simply for a suffering Savior 
who suffers for my sins, yet does not make satisfac- 
tion for them, but for the atonement made by the 
Savior that satisfies for sin ; puts it away ; meets 
every demand of the law for it, as this alone is the 
only hope of salvation of fallen guilty, sinners. 

In presenting my arguments to you, to sustain the 
last part of my proposition, that the atonement was 
made for the elect exclusively, it will be necessary 
for me to notice, first, the doctrine of election. I 
am under no special obligation to confine myself to 
the word elect, but I feel at liberty to use any word or 
expression that embraces God's elect, exclusively. 

I will state, then, that God purposed, or intended, 
beforehand to save a people, and I will try to sup- 
port the statement by Scripture testimony. For 
proof of the statement I will quote Eph. i., 4, 5 : 
" According as He hath chosen us in Him before 
the foundation of the world, that we should be holy 
and without blame before Him in love. Having 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 119 

predestinated us into the adoption of children by 
Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good 
pleasure of His will." 

It is very evident from this text, that there were 
some people chosen in Christ before the foundation 
of the world, and that, according to that choice, they 
are in time, blessed with all spiritual blessings in 
Christ. The purpose for which they were chosen, 
was that they % should be holy and without blame be- 
fore God in love. It is also unmistakably taught 
here that God had predestinated them to the adop- 
tion of children. There were two, at least, embrac- 
ed in this grand arrangement, for the pronoun us 
would not have been used, if there had not been at 
least two. I do not know how many, but I do 
know that the apostle, in this letters addressed the 
saints which were at Ephesus, and the faithful in 
Christ Jesus ; and I conclude that Paul, and all'those 
to whom he was writing, were chosen in Christ before 
the foundation of the world, and were predestinated 
unto the adoption of children. 

I presume no one will doubt the Ephesians and 
Paul being children of God, and if they were, it was 
because they were predestined to be. Is that true 
with all the children of God ? Were all that ever 
have been, are now, or ever will be the children of 
God predestined to be his children ? If not, then 
the Lord's family must be divided, and some of 
them are His children because He determined be- 



120 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

forehand that they should be, and others are His 
children simply because they determined themselves 
that they would be. 

Certainly no one will pretend to claim that there is 
such a distinction as that in the family of God. 
Then, if there is not such a division as that, it must 
be that all that ever have been, are now. or ever will 
be, His children, were chosen in Christ before the 
foundation of the world, and were predestinated unto 
the adoption of children. 

This was true o£ Paul and the Ephesians, and it 
must be true of all the others. They are all His 
children for the same reason ; hence, they were all 
chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, 
and were predestinated unto the adoption of children. 

Having made this point, now I intend to try to 
work to it while I present my arguments. As God 
did choose His people in Christ before the founda-, 
tion of the world, and predestinate them unto the 
adoption of children, it follows as a matter of neces- 
sity that all those whom He did predestinate unto 
the adoption of children, will finally be brought into 
His family. I presume none will claim that if God 
predestinated a people to be His children, they will 
fail to be. Then, if He fore-ordained some to be 
His, they will be, and if He fore-ordained all the race 
to be His. they will be, so all that is necessary for us 
to know whether He predestinated all the race, is to 
find out, if we can. if all the race will be saved. If 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 121 

some of them are not saved, and others are, and that 
because God designed they should be, then it must 
follow that He did not design to save those that will 
not be saved. If He did not design to save them, 
then I cannot see the propriety of Christ making an 
atonement for them. I hope we may hear something 
on this part of the subject from my brother, that will 
help us out of trouble, provided we are in an error. 

I now claim that all the people that will ever sur- 
round the dazzling throne of God, in Heaven, were 
predestined to that end, and that they are, and will 
be adopted into the family of God because He de- 
termined beforehand that they should be. The rea- 
son I claim that, is because it was so with the Apos- 
tle Paul and the Ephesian brethren. 

Unless my worthy opponent will show us that I am 
mistaken in this claim, I shall make it my rallying 
point during the remainder of this debate. If God 
designed the salvation of all that will be saved, and 
saves all that He designed to save, then, if all the 
race are not saved, we are left to only one conclu- 
sion : — that He did not design to save all the race. 

I ask my brother to tell us if he believes that God 
did design to save any of the race ? and if He did 
design to save some, did He design to save all the 
race ? I wish an answer to that question. 

Did God design to save any of the race ? did He 
design to save all the race. Please answer that. If 
he tells us that God designed to save the entire race, 



122 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

then I wish to know why they are not all saved. If 
he tells us that he did not intend to save the entire 
race, then I ask what could have been his purpose in 
having Christ to die for them ? If we say that God 
could not justly punish the wicked until Christ died 
for them, we deny the just claims of the law for sin ; 
and if we say that Christ did die for them, and then 
they are lost, we say that Christ by His death did 
not make satisfaction to the just claims of the law for 
His sins. 

But I will pass to another text: — Eph. i., 11, " In 
whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being 
predestinated according to the purpose of Him who 
worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." 

These are the same Paul and the Ephesians that 
we have been speaking of. They have obtained an 
inheritance, and the cause is that they were predes- 
tinated according to the purpose of God, who worketh 
things after the counsel of His own will. His pur- 
pose, counsel, will and covenant are all the same 
thing. He works all things pertaining to the salva- 
tion of His people after the counsel of His will. It 
is evident from this text that he has a purpose, and 
it is also evident that His purpose had to do in giv- 
ing the inheritance to the Apostle Paul and his 
brethren. 

I presume that it will not be denied in this dis- 
cussion that God has a purpose, and all the people 
were embraced in it that will ever be saved. He 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 123 

purposed to save them, and now, according to that 
purpose He works. I have my serious doubts of any 
being saved that God did not purpose to save. If 
any should be saved that He did not purpose to save, 
then God does not save them, or else He saves them 
without purposing to do so. It will not be denied, I 
presume, by my brother, that all that God purposed 
to save, He will save. So if He purposed to save 
the race of men then the race will be saved, and if 
any of the race of men are not saved, it is very evi- 
dent He did not purpose to save them. 

I will now proceed to give a few quotations with 
reference to God's purpose : Eph. iii., 8, 11, " Unto 
me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this 
grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles 
the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all 
men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which 
from the beginning of the world hath been hid in 
God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. To the 
intent that now unto the principalities and powers in 
heavenly places might be known by the church the 
manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal 
purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our 
Lord." 

There are two particulars in this passage I wish to 
call attention to ; one is that the church, and not the 
entire race, was embraced in God's purpose. I un- 



124 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

derstand the church in this text to embrace all the 
elect of God, and I believe it to be the elect only, 
and that the purpose that embraced the church is in 
Christ, and that it is an eternal purpose. The 
church is embraced in this eternal purpose, so the 
church was in Christ eternally, not in actual exist- 
ence, but in covenant, or purpose. The purpose was 
in Christ, and the church was in the purpose, so the 
church was in Christ. ' ; According as He hath 
chosen us in Him before the foundation of the 
world." 

Christ atoned for those that were in Him by this 
covenant. Or, in other words, He atoned for those 
embraced in the covenant. He atoned for all that 
He died for, and I challenge my brother to show 
from the Bible that He died for any only those who 
were embraced in the eternal purpose of God. 
Every one that He died for was embraced in the 
covenant, no matter under what circumstances His 
death for them is mentioned in the Scriptures, nor 
with what language they are described. I want no 
better evidence that they were embraced in the 
eternal covenant than to know that He died for 
them. 

But let us give one more text upon this point : 11 
Tim. i., 9, " Who hath saved us, and called us with 
an holv calling, not according to our works, but ac- 
cording to His own purpose and' grace, which was 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 125 

given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." We 
now have the covenant, and the people, and the 
grace all in Christ before the world began, and the 
people saved according to all this grand and perfect 
scheme. 

This covenant did embrace some men, and I hard 
ly think it will suit my opponent to claim that it 
embraced the entire race of men. I have too much 
confidence in his fidelity to the Bible, to entertain 
any fears that he will say there was no such an ar- 
rangement as an eternal purpose and that in Christ,, 
and the people in the purpose, and grace given them 
in Christ, and they saved according to that divine 
purpose and grace. The Bible is unmistakably clear 
that there was just such an arrangement. I claim 
that for this people that Christ died, and those for 
whom He died He atoned, and those for whom He 
atoned will all be saved. 

I challenge my brother to show any provision for 
the salvation of any that were not embraced in the 
covenant of grace. I challenge him to show any 
provisions for the salvation of any that God did not 
intend to save ; or that He intended to save any 
that He will not save. I wish now to call attention 
to Tit. i., 2, 3 : " In hope of eternal life, which God, 
that cannot lie, promised before the world began ;. 
but hath in due times manifested His word through 



126 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

preaching, which is committed unto me, according to 
the commandment of God, our Savior." Here we 
have eternal life, promised by Him that cannot lie; 

[Time Out.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



MR. DICKEY'S FOURTH SPEECH. 

Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I FIND my brother a fine hand at asking ques- 
tions, but a very poor one in answering. He has 
been asking questions all day, but has not attempted 
to answer any questions — dodges every one he can 
possibly get around. I do not blame him for it, 
though. 

I was speaking in my last speech in regard to the 
resurrection of the dead. That if Christ was not 
raised from the dead, then is our faith vain ; and 
those that are fallen asleep in Jesus will perish. My 
brother makes the salvation of the sinner depend 
simply on the death of Jesus Christ ; that whether 
Jesus had come forth from the grave or not, we 
would have been saved. My brother teaches it, but 
then he avoids it — gets around it. He is not a great 
hand at answering arguments anyway, although he 



128 DEBATE OX ATONEMENT. 

can make them. However, I would like for him to 
tell me. I want him to give an answer this time. 
If Jesus Christ made an atonement by His death on 
the cross,, by the shedding of His blood, if it was an 
actual atonement, would it have saved an indit idual 
without the resurrection of Jesus Christ ? If it re- 
quires the resurrection of Jesus Christ to save sin- 
ners, then the death of Christ alone cannot save 
them; there must be a resurrection. Xow. if he 
can rake up this point, make it clear and plain and 
convince this people that we would have been saved 
without the resurrection of Jesus Christ he will gain 
his point. But so long as he lets this point stand he 
never will convince this congregation that he is cor- 
rect in regard to the atonement being made on the 
cross : never will convince anyone that sinv 
death and shedding of the blood of Christ saves any- 
body. Brother Potter and the Apostle Paul are 
right contrary, for Paul says it Christ be not raised, 
we are of all men most miserable, showing m 
clearly that it took the resurrection of Jesus Christ 
to save sinners, and that it takes the resurrection of 
the dead to make atonement complete. In the 
propositien it says complete atonement. Everything 
done that was necessary to be done, nothing lacking. 
I want him to tell me how it is, and also . to answer 
this question, so that the people can see : " If the 
work was all performed by Jesus Christ on the cross, 
if it was complete, if there was nothing left to be 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 129 

done, I ask what is the need of a mediator to stand 
in the presence of God to mediate between God and 
those that are lost ? Please tell us. I would like 
for him to begin to tell us and show us how it is, and 
if it was the complete work that was done on the 
cross. Of all other mistakes among men, that is 
perhaps the biggest. If this were true, then without 
the resurrection and without the intercession, with- 
out the mediation for those for whom He died, they 
would have been saved. But the Apostle Paul 
teaches that it takes more ; therefore, the position 
that there was. a complete atonement made on the 
cross must evidently be wrong. 

My brother's position is lost unless he can show 
that they would have been saved without the resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ. He might talk here for a 
month without proving that his position is correct, 
or that my presentation of it is contrary to the 
Scriptures. He will fail to show that a complete 
atonement was made on the cross. In regard to its 
being made for the elect and no one else, he has 
failed to make a proof. He has not made any 
proof to-day. He has said nothing in regard to the 
chosen. Instead of showing when or where it was 
made, he has applied it to those for whom it was 
made. Then he commenced his dodging the texts 
again, and gets on to election. Sometimes I am 
afraid my brother is not able to manage them very 



130 . DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

well, as he has gone back to election ; avoiding the 
very point. Instead of answering me as to whether 
we are reconciled by the death of Jesus Christ, he is 
off on election. I showed that we were not in exist- 
ence at the time Christ died upon the cross ; that it 
was while we were enemies we were to be reconciled, 
and that we could not have been reconciled on the 
cross. I hope he will tell us how this is. We were 
reconciled when we were enemies. If there was an 
atonement made on the cross it was not made for 
us, because we were not in existence. If the atone- 
ment was made, it could not have been made for the 
elect or anybody else who live now, for they needed 
no atonement at that time ; they were not enemies, 
for they had never existed. Therefore, there could 
be no atonement made for them. There was then 
no reason why they should be reconciled to God. 
Therefore., there was no atonement made for them. 
There was no need of it. 

For instance, suppose that Brother Atteberry and 
I are good friends and treat each other like gentle- 
men as we do, but I conclude that he has done some- 
thing very wrong and I refuse to treat him as I did 
treat him. Well, suppose he could not come to me 
to get me to become reconciled to him, but suppose 
he was to send one of his boys. Suppose I am lying 
very sick and I would die unless I receive help. 

Brother Asa was to hear of my sickness ; he sends 
that little boy over with a bottle of medicine ; he 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 131 

says : " Dickey, I always wanted to be your friend 
and do you kindnesses, but you would not receive 
them at my hand, but now I understand that you are 
about to die, and I will prove my love to you by 
sending a medicine that will restore you to life.^ 
When that boy would give me the medicine I should 
have all the confidence that he — Brother Asa — had 
been a friend to me and that I had been an enemy 
to him without any cause. 

Just so in regard to God. We have no complaint 
to make against God, but enmity exists upon our 
part. We have no reason why we should not believe 
that God is our friend. But if God is going to damn 
us because Adam transmitted to us sinful natures, 
then I do not think He is much of a friend to us. 

But it looks to me like it is on the other side of 
the question. . This would be impeaching the char- 
acter of God, but the Bible does not teach it, there- 
fore I cannot believe it. But God sent His Son into 
the world, man's second representative. He was not 
satisfied with man, so He sent His Son into the 
world and through Him we are receiving the bless- 
sings. He informs us how to act, and rebukes us 
for doing that which is wrong. God sent His Son in 
the world to die on the cross, which is a part of the 
great plan of salvation that is given to us on that 
condition, and with the promise that those who 
will believe on Him will be saved. 



132 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

When we realize that this is true, the death of 
Christ does have a powerful effect in producing obe- 
dience to the commands of high heaven. It is also 
a means in producing our reconciliation, but we are 
saved by His life. That is telling what I helieve 
about the atonement. I have an idea that I know 
about what I believe. To-morrow I will tell you 
what I know about the elect. I will tell it so plain 
that you will nearly all believe it. Maybe there will 
be half a dozen in the house that will not. 

He wants to know what good Christ's death did if it 
did not make an atonement. Why it is a part of the 
work. Suppose a man goes out to break his corn 
patch ; he does not plant it ; the breaking of the 
ground was necessary to the crop. But if he does 
not plant the corn he will not expect a crop. 

Just so in the salvation of sinners.* The. coming 
and death of Christ was necessary to save sinners, 
but that alone will save nobody. Nobody would 
have been saved without Christ's coming, but the 
coming did not save any one. If Jesus Christ had 
not performed the various works for the Gospel, the 
world would not have been saved. Without the per- 
forming of miracles by His power bearing testimony 
of the same, there would have been a great many 
who would not have believed the Gospel ; but they 
had the evidence right before their eyes, in their 
presence. Consequently these miracles were impor- 
tant, but did they save anybody ? Not a bit pf it. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 133" 

Just so in regard to the death of Jesus Christ. I 
attach as much importance to it as any one could in 
the reconciliation of the race, but I say His death 
considered alone saves no one. I say it will save no 
one, because the Apostle Paul says, if He had not 
rose from the dead our faith is vain. 

Thus we see His death is only an important step. 
but it does -not put away sin ; sin is found in the 
world yet. We are still in our sin, but when the 
penalty is paid we will not be, and this can never be 
done without the resurrection, or if Christ had not 
rose from the dead. This atonement will be com- 
pleted then. But those that are fallen asleep in 
Jesus are to perish ; never going to come forth from 
the dead. 

Yet my brother would make this congregation be- 
lieve that everything was done on the tree of the 
cross that was necessary to be done. I believe that 
you can nearly all see that something else is to be 
done. I believe in the great love of the Savior for 
all the race and His wish to save them that He will 
make an atonement for their'sins, but I do not be- 
lieve He did it by one act, nor by all the acts He did. 
He has not yet accomplished the work He has un- 
dertaken ; it is yet to be accomplished. There is a 
great deal yet to do. We see men in sin every- 
where. If all is now done that is going to be done, 
we are going to perish. We will be like those indi- 
viduals that have fallen asleep in Jesus, we are going 
to perish. 



134 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Without the Son of God on high to atone for our 
sins and with His blood reconcile those that believe 
on Him to God, we must perish. No, His blood 
must be offered at the mercy seat of God. The 
death of Christ saves no individual that has ever 
lived on the face of the earth. 

To-morrow I am going to make this clear. My 
friend has commenced at one end and I have com- 
menced at the other. He has been speaking in re- 
gard to Christ dying for all. He says He died for 
only the elect. I do not know who the elect are. 
I do not know anything about that, but at the same 
time I think I know for whom He died. 

Roman v., 6, " For when we were yet without 
strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." 
Now, is it only the elect that have been ungodly in 
this world ? According to my brother no one but 
just the elect has been ungodly. The race has all 
been good if Jesus Christ did not die for them. 
That is not in the Bible. He died for the ungodly. 

Suppose two' men were ungodly. He could not 
have died for one and not for the other. If the 
entire race was ungodly He died for all ; He could 
not die for one ungodly man and not die for anoth- 
er, on the cross. " For when we were yet without 
strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 5 ' 
Christ died for sinners. For whom did He die ? 
Sinners. If nobody were sinners but the elect, 
Christ did not die for anybody but the elect. The 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 135 

others would be in a blessed condition, for they 
would be without sin. If the elect were the only 
ones in the world that Christ died for, consequently 
the rest would be all right without His death as He 
died for the ungodly. 

But Christ certainly died for us, for we are all 
dead, and here it says He died for all. He certainly 
died for all, for they were all dead. The Apostle 
Paul says in 11 Corinthians v., 14, " For the love of 
Christ constraineth us ; because we thus judge, that 
if one died for all, then were all dead." 

" And that He died for all, that they which live 
should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto 
Him which died for them and rose again." Who is it 
that is alluded to here. If it is only the elect that 
Christ died for on the tree of the cross, they are the 
only ones that were dead. Listen here : " And that 
He died for all, that they which live should not 
henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him 
which died for them and rose again." Whoever has 
lived upon the face of the earth is unjust, and is 
commanded to live for Christ, and nobody has ever 
lived, nobody is on earth who is not under obliga- 
tions to clo so. " For we see Jesus, who was made a 
little lower than the angels, that He, by the grace of 
God, has tasted death for every man."' Every man 
includes the entire race. All scholars, everybody 
that has read much, knows that our term man in- 
cludes the whole race of men. 



136 DEBATE OX ATONEMENT. 

But Jesus has tasted death separately for every 
man — for each man: that is just what it means, that 
Jesus Christ tasted death for every man — every man 
that has lived on the face of the earth. 

Then He must have died for every man. So my 
brother will find a hard road to 2:0 alon^. 1 Tim. 
ii., 5. 6, " For there is one God and one mediator 
between God and men. the man Christ Jesus; who 
gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due 
time." 

Does that mean a part of the race ? The Apostle 
Paul says for all. There, all means every one. He 
will redeem them back from the grave, from the 
power of death, and He will give to them life. That 
is the idea. Then he goes on to say : "Wherefore 
He is able to save them to the uttermost that come 
to Him." 

This intercession is for all people. Why ? Be- 
cause He died for all — for the sinner ; for the un- 
godly. Hebrews vii., 25. i; Wherefore He is able 
also to save them to the uttermost that come unto 
God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make inter- 
cession for them.''' This shows that His work is not 
yet done. He quoted a passage — "according as He 
hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the 
world,"' etc. I know that the Scriptures speak of 
choosing, What is in this verse ? " According as 
He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of 
the world, that we should be holy and without blame 
before Him in love." 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 137 

Jesus existed before the foundation of the world 
All things were made by Him. Jesus Christ is the 
one that is chosen, as I will show you. He is the 
first one represented as being elected. In connection 
with this, Jesus Christ being the first that is called 
or elected, He is the first that is chosen. 

Another passage of Scripture, says God is no re- 
spector of persons; so preparatory to choosing Jesus 
Christ, God must know of His ability to accomplish 
that which He has designed to have accomplished. 
There was no other character like this ; if there was, 
why did He not choose him ? Why did He choose 
Jesus ? Because He is no respector of persons. Je- 
sus was the only person found capable of carrying 
out the work God had designed, so He was chosen ; 
and just as many as live in the world are chosen in 
Jesus Christ, because He was the only person that 
designed exactly as God designed, and was capable 
of performing the work. All others that Jesus Christ 
chose, were chosen in Jesus Christ, or else God was 
a respector of persons, and'the Bible says He is not 
in many places. 

This was prospective choosing. We had no ex- 
istence ; we were only chosen in Christ, prospec- 
tively, for the human family was not in existence. 
God saw that individuals would live, and all that 
was going to be, and He chose them through His 
Son because of their likeness. The Apostle says if 
we have not the spirit of Christ we are not like 



138 DEBATE OX ATONEMENT. 

Christ. But everyone that has lived or may live on 
the face of the earth was se lected in Christ as a 
representative. Christ was our representative. He 
being our representative, we were selecte d prospec- 
tively, not really, when it comes to reality. The 
Apostle says : 

11 Thessalonians, ii., 13 : " because God hath 
from the beginning chosen you to salvation through 
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, " 

Thus we have been sanctified by the Spirit before 
the world was created — before there was any exist- 
ence. This could not have been done only prospec- 
tively, not in reality ; we were chos en through sanc- 
tification of the Spirit and belief of the tru th. How 
were we to be chosen ? We were called. How 
were we called ? 

11 Thessalonians, ii., 14: " Whereun to He called 
you by our Gospel to the obtaining of the glory of 
our Lord Jesus Christ." 

This is why, the Gospel teaches, that men are 
saved. God has provided a means by which men 
may be brought back to the tree of life. He sent 
His Son into the world to save sinners and to atone 
for their sins. Prospectively we were chosen, and 
eventually the work of deliverance will be accom- 
plished. Men will be brought back in a justified 
state. If they have faith in Jesus Christ, He will 
lead them to the tree of life. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 139 

In this life we are living in conformity with our 
natures, but trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ. If 
we trust in Jesus, we are brought back in reach of life, 
even as Adam stood in reach of life. There is much 
to be accomplished by Jesus Christ. It takes grace 
complete to save sinners. If my brother will find 
complete grace, I will think he understands some- 
thing about the great plan of salvation in the Gos- 
pel, but when he comes up and makes an act that 
was performed 1,800 years ago, a perfect atonement, 
he makes the salvation of the human family depend 
on a dead Savior, instead of a living risen one. If 
he would make it depend on a living Savior who is 
able to save them to the uttermost that come to 
Him, I could begin to shake hands with him ; but 
this way of putting it on one single act performed 
1,800 years ago will not do for me. It makes no 
difference to me what the Methodists believe or 
anybody else. I think it sufficient to believe the 
Bible as the Spirit of inspiration has dictated it ; and 
inspiration never dictated it in such a manner as to 
give the idea that Jesus Christ made a full and com- 
plete atonement by one act, it makes no difference 
what that act was. But Jesus Christ is able to make 
a complete atonement and He will do it at the 
proper time and in the right way. 

I tell you He is a grand Savior. I would present 
Him in His death and in His sufferings, but not in 
them alone. He will finally bring those who believe 



140 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

in .Him to live eternally in Heaven, and this will all 
be done because of His great love to the children of 
men. Can we do the Savior justice when we put 
the atonement on that one act ? If suffering would 
save a man, there is enough of it in the world now 
to redeem men. But suffering will not reconcile 
men to God. 

Well, now, could a prospective choice affect the 
nature of those existing in eternity ? My brother 
has said that God chose us back in eternity. Were 
we God's children before He chose us ? If so, there . 
was no use of His choosing us. Suppose they were 
not His^ did choosing them make them His ? Cer- 
tainly not. If they were His, they needed no choos- 
ing, so my brother, when he goes in to choice, goes 
to digging pretty deep down. 

Choosing us back in eternity did not make us 
His. Does choosing a thing make it mine ? No. 
But we are chosen in Christ prospectively and from 
our likeness of Him. 

[Time Out.] 



CHAPTER IX. 



MR. POTTER S FIFTH SPEECH. 

Brethfen, Moderators ', Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I AM sorry that after I corrected my brother yes- 
terday, when he accused me of believing that the 
death of Christ alone saves the sinner without His 
resurrection, ascension, intercession and mediation, 
when I corrected him on that point yesterday, he 
said he would stand corrected, but he afterwards 
made the same charge, as though I had not cor- 
rected him at all. I told you when I corrected him, 
that His death reconciled us, and we shall be saved 
by His life, and for him not to accuse me of looking 
to a dead Christ for salvation, but to a living Savior. 
Now, this is the second time I have corrected him 
on the point, and if he makes the charge again, I 
shall think he does not intend to debate fairly. 

I will now remind him that the word salvation is 
not in the proposition. I am not here to affirm that 



142 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

sinners were saved on the cross, for I believe -no 
such thing, as I had told him before in a letter. I 
do believe that the atonement was made on the 
cross, and as a result of that atonement the sinner 
will be saved. Atonement was necessary to salva- 
tion, but atonement is not all that is necessary. All 
the work of Christ is necessary, but the atonement 
was made on the cross. I hope I am understood. 

He admits that reconciliation and atonement mean 
the same thing. I claim that if they do, then atone- 
ment was made on the cross, for it was by His 
death, and His death took place on the cross. 

He complains that I am good at asking questions, 
and that he would love to hear me answer as w r ell as 
ask. It is very evident that some of my questions 
are very much in his way, but I will ask him one or 
two of the same questions again, and if I do not get 
an answer, I mav continue to ask. 

What was the object of the sufferings of Christ for 
sin if it was not to endure the penalty of the law for 
the sins for which He suffered ? I have asked that 
question before, but for want of an answer, I ask it 
again. 

What is meant by the text I quoted yesterday 
that says : " He appeared once in the end of the 
world to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself ? " 
He has not answered this question yet, and I pre- 
sume he will not. Yet he thinks I am wrong in my 
positions, but how am I to get right if he will not 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 143 

tell me ? I am an enquirer now, and I humbly ask 
for light. Will He give it ? 

But he says Christ could not die for one ungodly 
man unless He died fofrall the ungodly. I wish he 
would have proved that. I have come too far to 
go back home with nothing but his word. But per- 
haps he will yet prove it, so I will wait. 

He proposed to choose those people that had the 
likeness of Christ, but how different he and Brother 
Paul are on that point. Paul says : " According as 
He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of 
the world, that we should be holy and without blame 
before Him in love." 

Brother Dickey would have it that He chose them 
because they were holy. All can see the discrep- 
ancy, I presume. 

But he says had I commenced arguing some other 
way, he would have thought I understood some- 
thing about it. I gather from that expression that, 
to differ from him is to be ignorant. 

He says if the people were God's before He chose 
.them, He need not choose them, I do not know 
whether by this to deny election or not. I will wait 
till he explains. 

He says I began at one end of the question, and 
he at the other. To that I will say that I began 
first, and if he began at the other end, it must have 
been because he wished to get as far from me as he 
could, or else he did not know where I was 
until he had commenced. 



144 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

But he is going to tell us how it is to-day. Then 
I suppose he did not tell us yesterday. 

I now wish to notice some expressions that he re- 
lies upon to prove universal 'atonement. 

When a man undertakes to prove that Christ died 
for the entire race of men, he should be certain that 
he has, at least, one text that testifies pointedly and 
positively to that point. The strongest proof in 
favor of a universal atonement,* is such expressions 
as all ?nen^ or every man, or the world, or the whole 
world and so forth. 

There is not a single text in the whole divine vol- 
ume that says that Christ died for all the race of 
Adam. If there had been such a text, it would have 
sounded in our ears before this, during this debate. 
But for want of the text it has not been produced. 
The expression, every man, does occur in connection 
with the death of Christ, and from it our universal 
friends claim that He died for all the race. Why 
does that text prove universal atonement ? Simply 
because it says every man. Then, if that is a good 
reason, eveery man must mean all the race of men. If 
every man does not mean all the race, then this text 
does not prove that He died for all the race. But if 
this text does prove universal atonement, then every 
man when it occurs in Scripture must mean the race. 
If it ever means less than the entire race of men in the 
Bible, it may possibly mean less than the race in the 
text connected with the death of Cnrist. "That He 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 145 

by the grace of God should taste death for every 
man," Heb. ii., 9. Does every man here embrace 
the human race ? If it does not, then this is not the 
text to prove universal atonement by. 

Let us first see if the expression itself, when we find 
it in Scripture will warrant us to say it means all the 
race of Adam. " The law and the prophets were 
until John ; since that time the kingdom of God is 
preached, and every man presseth into it," Luke 
xvi,, 16. If every man includes the whole human 
race, then the whole human race pressed into the 
kingdom of God when John preached, but there were 
very few comparatively that pressed into it. It 
is evident that every man, in this text does mean 
less than the race of Adam. If it does, the other 
may. 

But let us notice the context a moment, and see if 
we can learn'who are really meant for the expression 
" every man " " But we see Jesus, who was made a 
little lower than the angels, by the sufferings of 
death, crowned with glory and honor; that He, by 
the grace of God, should taste death for every man. 
For it became him for whom are all things,, 
by whom are all things, in m bringing many 
sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their 
salvation perfect through sufferings. For both He 
that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all 
of one ; for which cause He is not ashamed to call 

10 



146 DEBATE OX ATONEMENT. 

them brethren. Saying, I will declare my name 
unto mv brethren, in the midst of the church will I 
sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my 
trust in Him. And again, behold, I, and the chil- 
dren which God hath given me," Heb. ii., 9, 13. 
How much does that sound like all the race of 
Adam? " Every man," the "many sons," 
u they who are sanctified," "my brethren," 
and " the children which God hath given me," 
are all the same, are they not? If the everv man, 
in this text embraces all the race of Adam, so does 
each of the other expressions. But none of the 
others do, so there is no universal atonement in the 
text. 

But it is argued that the term world and the whole 
world, when used in connection with the death of 
Christ, must mean the race of Adam, entire. If 
those terms never do mean less than the whole race, 
when used in Scripture, then, of course, all that is 
necessary to prove universal atonement, or that 
.Christ died for the entire race, is to find the text 
that says He died for the world, or for the whole 
world. 

But let us try these expressions, and see if they do 
always mean the whole human race. IE they cannot 
mean less than the human race, then, it is clear that 
He died for the whole world. I am not here to deny 
that, but I do deny that He died for the entire race of 
Adam. If we should be able to prove that the words 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 147 

world, whole world, &c, do sometimes mean less than 
all Adam's race, then it may be that the same terms 
mean less than the race, when used in connection 
with the death of Christ. Rev. v., 13, " And every 
creature which is in Heaven, and on the earth, and 
such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard 
I saying, Blessing and honor, and glory, and pow- 
er, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and 
unto the Lamb, forever and ever." The expression 
of the text is as universal as any I know of in con- 
nection with the death of Christ. 

If my brother should give one text in connection 
with the death of Christ, that is so expressive of uni- 
versalism as this one, it would look more like he had 
proved his point than any he is likely to introduce. 
Notice, every creature which is in Heaven, and on 
the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are 
in them. That is certainly a lengthy all. If you 
have one text on the death of Christ, that will extend 
farther toward the whole race of men than this one 
does, I would love for you to produce it. Surely, if 
the whole race is ever embraced in any expression, 
in the Bible, in connection with Christ's death, the 
whole race must be meant here. It says, " Every 
creature which is in Heaven, and on earth, and such 
as are in the sea, and all that are in them. " That 
is certainly universal, or else it cannot be proved that 
Christ died for all the race of Adam, by any text of 
Scripture. 



148 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

But now, let us see if this does mean all, or less 
than all the race of Adam. Rev. vi., 15, 16, "And 
the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the 
rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty 
men, and every bond man, and every free man, hid 
themselves in the dens, and in the rocks of the 
mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, 
fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that 
sitteth upon the throne, and from the wrath of the 
Lamb.'' 

Now, it does seem tl*at every bond man, and every 
free man, is very expressive of universalism. Both 
of these passages are as full of the entire race of men 
as any we will be likely to find connected with the 
death of Christ. One of them in the fifth, and the 
other in the sixth chapter of Revalation, and it can 
not be understood any other way, than that one of 
them embraces the saved only, and the other the lost 
only. Neither of them includes the entire race. As 
they are so full, and yet mean less than the race, it 
may be that when the Scriptures speak of Christ 
dying for the world, the whole world, all men, and 
every man, less than the race is meant. 

There is quite a difference between the expres- 
sions all without distinction and all without exception. 
That Christ died for all without distinction, that is, 
for all ranks and descriptions of men, I believe, but 
that He died for all the race without exception, I 
deny. It should be observed, that universal terms 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 149 

are not to be stretched beyond that with reference to 
which they are used. They denote all comprehend- 
ed within a specified whole, but the whole itself may 
be limited. In this sense the term all may express 
an endless variety of extensions ; it may be all the 
members of the church, or all the children of a school, 
or all the citizens of a town, or all the population of 
a country, or all the inhabitants of the globe. Its 
meaning must be defined by that which is spoken of, 
and consistent with other plain declarations of Scrip- 
ture. That Christ died for all is truly affirmed in 
Scripture ; but for all whom ? Is it ever said in 
Scripture that He died for all the human race ? 
This is the question. Did He die for all the human 
family, or for all the Father gave Him, for all His 
own, for all His church ? 

In speaking of privileges secured for the people of 
Ireland, if the writer should happen to say that these 
privileges were secured for all, it would certainly be 
unfair to infer that they were secured for all the in- 
habitants of the globe. But we are as fully author- 
ized to make that inference, as we are to infer that 
Christ died for the whole human family, if, when in 
speaking of the privileges of the people of God, the 
writer should say " Christ died for all." 

Nothing is more clearly demonstrated than that 
the phrases, the world, all the world, and the whole 
world, often occur, in Scripture, in circumstances, 
where absolute collective universality is perfectly in- 



150 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

admissible. It is true in the following : " There 
went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the 
world should be taxed;" Luke ii., 1, where all the 
world, can mean only the inhabitants of the Roman 
Empire. 

" The world knew Him not, 5 ' John i., 10. 

All the human family cannot be meant in this text, 
and I presume it will not be claimed, in this debate, 
as there were certainly some, even then, who did 
know Christ. 

" Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing ; behold the 
whole world is gone after Him," John xii., 29. 

The whole world in this text cannot be understood 
to mean all the human race. The number that 
followed Jesus, and waited on His ministry were de- 
nominated the world, in a very restricted sense, for 
very few comparatively went after Him., 

" The whole world lieth in wickedness," 1 John v., 
19. This quotation is more extensive than some 
others, but universality cannot be admitted here, for, 
at the time the language was used, there must have 
been several thousand godly persons in the world. 
At the time to which this language applies, there 
were with the Lamb on Mount Zion a hundred and 
forty and four thousand, who had not the mark of the 
beast in their forehead. 

Hence, it is distinctly proved that the phrases in 
question do not prove universalism. If absolute 
universality is to be understood, when those phrases 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 151 

occur in connection with the death of Christ, it must 
be on some other ground than the Scripture usage of 
the language. And if the extent of import attacha- 
ble to the words is to be determined by circumstan- 
ces connected with the thing spoken of, I candidly 
submit whether the principles I have already ad- 
vanced, from the purpose of God, the covenant of 
grace, and the absolute election God's people, are 
not sufficient to warrant a restricted import, while 
the general observations I have made determine the 
nature and extent of this limitation. 

" Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the 
sin of the world." John i., 29. 

This text is quoted to prove universal atonement, 
and it is claimed that the world means the whole race 
of Adam. If it does not, then this text does not 
prove universal atonement. If this text does mean 
the entire race, then Christ must take away the sin 
of the entire race. As He does not take away the 
sin of all the race, this must be taken in some other 
sense. The world must be that portion of the race 
whose sin He absolutely takes away. 

In order to evade the force of this argument on 
this text, I have known men to claim that the sin in 
the text is the Adamic sin. I should think we might 
as well restrict the meaning of the word world, as the 
stn, for the texc does not say the sin of Adam any 
more than it does the sin of the elect. If it does 
mean 4he sin of Adam, the world, in this text, must 



152 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

be Adam. Such an interpretation as that would limit 
the sin to be one sin, and the world to be one man, 
instead of the entire race. That is more of a re- 
striction than I would wish. If we say it means the 
race, then Christ is represented as taking away the 
sin of the race, and then, if He does not take away 
the sin of the race, the text misrepresents Him. The 
truth is the passage, in the use of the word world 
simply means those whose sins He takes away, both 
among the Jews and Gentiles. I simply believe the 
elect are all that are included. 

" For God so loved the world that He gave His 
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him 
should not perish, but have everlasting life. For 
God sent not His Son into the world to condemn 
the world, but that the world through Him might be 
saved." John, iii., 16, 17. 

We have only to ask whether all the human race 
is absolutely saved by the only begotten Son of God 
in order to ascertain the extent of that world that is 
the object of God's redeeming love, for it must be 
blasphemy to suppose that the design for which God 
sent His Son into the world could in the slightest 
degree be frustrated. We certainly have a right to 
judge God's designs by what He does, and inter- 
pret the Scriptures accordingly. He came to save 
all that believe, and " as many as were ordained to 
eternal life believed," on one occasion, and so I 
conclude that as many of the human race as were or- 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 153 

dained to eternal life will ultimately believe ; He will 
save all that believe, then He will save all that were 
ordained to eternal life. God so loved the world 
that He sent His only begotten into the world to* 
save those ordained to eternal life. 

" We have heard Him ourselves, and know that 
this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world. " 
John, iv., 42. 

This text is an expression of certain Samaritans, 
concerning Christ, who were believers, and, of 
course, I have no disposition to question its truth- 
fulness. It represents Jesus as the Savior of the 
world. If this title be understood to denote only 
fullness of merit or sufficiency in the salvation of 
sinners it is easily explained, but if we suppose it to 
mean the actual procurement of salvation, then the 
final fact comes in to determine that the term 
" world " shall be taken in a restricted sense, for 
there can be nothing more derogatory to every just 
conception of the character of Christ, than to speak 
of him as being the Savior of those who are not saved. 

" The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I 
will give for the life of the world." John, vi., 51. 

In this text, no doubt, the Savior intended to con- 
trast between those privileges extended to the Jews, 
anciently, and the privileges He Himself was to be 
the immediate author of. This, in my opinion, ac- 
counts for the universality of the terms used in the 
text, while, as in the other cases, the fact obliges us 
to adopt a limited interpretation. 



154 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

" For the love of Christ constraineth us, because 
we thus judge that if one died for all, then were all 
dead. And that He died for all that they which 
•tive should not henceforth live unto themselves, but 
unto Him, which died for them and rose again. " 2 
Cor. v., 14, 15. 

It is enough here to ask whether all, without excep- 
tion, of the human family, are meant, or all ranks and 
descriptions of men are meant. Do all the human 
race, without exception, become reconciled to God? 
Do all the race live unto Him that died and rose 
again ? What does that text affirm ? Not that 
Christ died for all who were dead, but that all He 
died for were dead. The burden of this text is that 
those for whom He died were previously dead. 
There may be many* more dead than those He died 
for, but those for whom He did die were dead, is 
the argument of the Apostle. He died for them that 
they might live unto God. As many, as by the re- 
sult of His death live unto God, He died for. 
They are the ones included in the term all in this 
text and not the whole human race. 

I wish to remark that the word all is often em-, 
ployed in Scripture in a restricted or distributive 
sense ; for instance, when Paul says : u For all seek 
their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's. " 
Phil, ii., 21. The term in this text must be restricted 
to those selfish persons of whom He complains m 
the text, and not to the entire race of mankind, yet 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 155 

the term itself is as naked and general as in any case 
in which it is used in connection with the death of 
Christ. 

The same writer says : "marriage is honorable in 
all." Heb. xiii., 4. But the term all must also be 
restricted, for there are not only many persons en- 
ter into marriage dishonorably, but there are a 
great many of the race who never marry at all. 

" Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment 
came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the 
righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all 
men, unto justification of life." Rom. v., 18. 

Here, the actual result is spoken of justification. 
Are all the race of men, without exception, actually 
justified ? The free gift actually led to justification of 
life. This justification is as absolutely certain as 
that the one was righteous. It was absolutely cer- 
tain that by the offense of one, judgment came upon 
all he represented, and it is just as certain that by 
the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all 
that He represented, or else they are not parallels to 
each other. Adam represented his family, and no 
more : Christ represented His family and no more. 
As by the offense of Adam, all his progeny are ab- 
solutely brought into condemnation, so by the right- 
eousness of Christ all His family are absolutely jus- 
tified. 

When I closed my last speech, I was talking of 
eternal life that was promised before the world 
began. 



156 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

This eternal life certainly was promised to either a 
portion, or else to all the race of men. As there is 
no eternal life out of Christ, it must have been 
promised in Christ, and as it was promised in 
Him, it must have been promised to those that 
were chosen in Him. It is certain that this promise 
will be fulfilled, for it was God that made it, and 
Paul says He cannot lie. Paul seems to use the ex- 
pression on purpose to impress our minds with the 
certainty of its fulfillment. To promise to do a thing 
is to engage to do it, and to promise to give a thing 
is to engage to give it, and when one makes a prom- 
ise, his honor and ability are engaged in the prom- 
ise. We expect promises to be fulfilled in propor- 
tion to our confidence in the honor and ability of him 
that promises. If a man makes me a promise in 
whom I repose confidence as to his ability to do 
what he promises, and his honor to do as he promis- 
es, to the best of his ability, I confidently expect him 
to fulfill the promise ; but if I have confidence in his 
honor, but not in his ability, I am not much disap- 
pointed if he does not fulfill his engagement; or if I 
have confidence in his ability and not in his honor, 
I am not so much disappointed, if he does not do as 
he promised. If I have neither confidence in his 
honor nor ability, then his promise is not much com- 
fort to me. 

But who questions the honor of God ? He cannot 
lie. Who questions the ability of God, " who is in 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 157 

one mind and who can turn Him, and whatsoever 
His soul desires that He doeth ?" If we neither 
question His honor nor His ability, and we find that 
He promised eternal life before the world began, 
how are we going to come to the conclusion that He 
will not give that eternal life ? He will give it to all 
that He promised it to. If any exist that never have 
eternaMife, it must be evident to all that God did not 
promise it to them. If He did not promise it to 
them, He did not intend to give it to them, and if 
He did not intend to give it to them, he made no 
provision for them to have it. 

It was said that on one occasion, where the Apos- 
tles preached that " as many as were ordained to 
eternal life, believed," Acts xiii, 48. To those that 
were ordained to eternal life, I conclude God, that 
cannot lie, promised eternal life before the world 
began. Were all the race of men ordained to eter- 
nal life ? Were any of them ? Did any believe ? 
If so, they were ordained to eternal life. Did they 
all believe that were present at the time the text 
refers to ? If not, then they that did not were not 
ordained to eternal life, for as many as were ordain- 
ed to eternal life believed, and it will not do to say 
the text is true, and then say that some that were or- 
dained to eternal life did not believe. 

It will not do to say that none were ordained to 
eternal life, for the inspired writer would not have 



158 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

said anything about any being ordained, if none had 
been. Now, we are only left to conclude that some 
of them were ordained to eternal life and some were 
not. What say you ? Those that were ordained to 
eternal life believed. I wonder why some did not 
believe, on this occasion that were not ordained to 
eternal life ? We are often reminded by our Armin- 
ian brethren that if election is true, that the non-elect 
may repent, and believe, and do good, and then be 
damned because they were not elected. It seems 
from the text just quoted that no such difficulty came 
up. It was those that were elected that believed in 
this case, and they all, on that occasion believed, so 
the plea that is often indulged in that the elect will 
be saved whether they believe or not, is also answer- 
ed in this case. 

All that were ordained, believed, and those that 
were not ordained, did not believe, and then have to 
be rejected because they were not ordained. They 
did not believe at all. So, as it was on this occa- 
sion, so will it always be, the elect will believe, and 
the non-elect will not. In order that the elect be- 
lieve, it was necessary that God should purpose it, 
and then bring His purpose to pass. But it was not 
necessary for him to predestinate that the others 
should not believe, for they are certain not to be- 
lieve unless God determines they shall. It suits 
them not to believe, or in other words, they do not 
want to believe, and therefore it was not necessary 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 159 

for them to be shut out of believing by a purpose on 
the Lord's part. 

He did not elect a part of the race of men to sal- 
vation in order to hinder the others, not elected, 
from being saved, but in order that any be saved, it 
was necessary that He purpose it, and make just 
such provision for it as were absolutely necessary to 
bring it about. 

Now, as we have seen that some men were pre- 
destinated unto the adoption of children, I wish to 
notice one more text — Rom. viii., 28-30 : " And we 
know that all things work together for good to them 
that love God, to them who are the called, according 
to His purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He 
also did predestinate to be conformed to the image 
of His Son, that He might be the first born among 
many brethren. Moreover, whom He did predes- 
tinate, them He also called, and whom He called 
them He also justified, and whom He justified, them 
He also glorified." 

The first thing this text presents to our minds is 
the consolatory thought that all things work to- 
gether for good to them that love God. We now 
wish to know who love God. This text says : "to 
them who are the called according to His purpose. " 
Then they that love God are called according to His 
purpose. Tust point me out the soul that loves God 
and I will point one out that is called according to 
His purpose. I have already shown you that God 



160 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

worketh all things after the counsel of His own will, 
and I have shown you that He saves and calls, not 
according to our works, but according to His own 
purpose, and here we are taught that them that love 
God, are them that are the called according to His 
purpose. Do all the race of men love God ? Do 
any of them ? If any of them love God, then that 
many were embraced in the eternal purpose of God 
and were called according to that purpose. 

[Time Out.] 






CHAPTER X. 



4 MR. DICKEY'S FIFTH SPEECH. 

Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
J AM glad to have the opportunity of again ap- 
A pearing before you, this morning, for the purpose of 
discussing the question which we have under consid- 
eration. The Elder has gotten himself into rather a 
difficult place. He is inclined to think I am not dis- 
posed to answer him, but I find no difficulty in reply- 
ing to what he says ; for I am wanting a fair debate 
with him. 

This audience is aware of the fact that the Elder, 
during this discussion, has contended that the salva- 
tion oi the elect depends on the atonement made on 
the cross by Jesus Christ. He will not deny it now, 
or at any other time, that he contends that the sal- 
vation of the elect, be they many or few, depends on 
the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross. Well 
then, I brought up the passage in 1 Corinthians, 
ii 



162 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

xv. chapter, where it says : " And if Christ be not 
raised, your faith is vain, you are yet in your sins," 
showing that if Christ had not rose from the dead, 
that the elect would not have been saved ; that no 
one could have been saved. He also showed that the 
word salvation is not in the proposition ; tried to 
evade the force of the argument that I produced that 
individuals cannot be saved without the resurrection 
of Jesus Christ, and then tells us that the salvation 
of the elect depends on an act performed on the tree 
of the cross, which he calls an atonement. 

Now, unless my brother fixes that up, I expect 
in all probability I will still continue to call upon 
him from time to time, to show how it is possible 
that the elect could have been saved only by one 
action, performed on the cross by Jesus Christ, 
without the resurrection. If the atonement on the 
cross is all sufficient, then they are saved without the 
resurrection. I believe that the audience sees the 
point. 

Then there is another word in my brother's propo- 
sition he does not seem to see. Sometimes there are 
words in a proposition that a man wishes were out of 
it. Perhaps this will now apply to my brother. I 
defy him, I urge it upon him to find that the word 
" complete" is used in the Scriptures in connection 
with the atonement, made by Jesus Christ on the 
cross. If he cannot find the word " complete" in 
connection with the atonement, I defy and urge upon 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 163 

him to find its equivalent ; and if he fails to find that 
word or its equivalent, in connection with the atone- 
ment made on the cross, he has lost his point, in 
spite of all the reasoning and sophistry he may pre- 
sent to this congregation. Then I say that I shall 
urge upon him, speech after speech all day, if I hap- 
pen to think about it, until he brings up the word 
" complete" in connection with the atonement made 
on the cross. He knows as well as I know it, that 
he cannot find it in the Scriptures in that connec- 
tion. 

In addition to this, there is another word I think 
he is going to have a hard time to find something in 
regard to. He tried to evade the force of the argument 
by saying the word, " salvation " is not in the proposi- 
tion, but he cannot say this is not in the proposition : 
that is, " exclusively ; " that Jesus Christ made an 
atonement on the tree of the cross for the elect ex- 
clusively. Can 'he find it in the Scriptures? No, 
sir ; he knows he cannot. He knows there is no 
such a term as " exclusively " in connection with the 
atonement made on the cross, if there was one made 
there. He never can find the word exclusively. He 
never will find an atonement that excludes anybody, 
made on the cross, nor anywhere else, until he finds 
the word " complete " in that connection. He must 
find a complete atonement that is made exclusively 
for the elect. If he will just find one individual that 
is excluded from the benefits of that atonement, that 
will do. 



164 DEBATE ON ATONEM.ENT. 

Then he urges again upon me to answer him on 
what I think I have answered about a half-dozen 
times. In regard to what were the sufferings of 
Jesus Christ for if they did not make an atonement. 
I will repeat it that the congregation may keep it in 
mind : because God did not see proper to have an 
atonement made by the sufferings^ but by the blood 
of Jesus Christ. Now, if God had arranged for 
Jesus Christ to have made an atonement by His 
sufferings, all right ; but if, on the other hand, by 
His blood, and not by His sufferings, all right. I 
think the audience can see clearly that it was not 
to be made by suffering, therefore I do not see fit to 
argue that it was made by sufferings, and if my 
brother continues so to argue, I will ask him the 
reason why the atonement was not made for Israel 
by the sufferings of the Lamb outside. When he 
answers that, I will answer the question why the suf- 
ferings of Christ did not make an atonement. We 
know that the Lamb did not make an atonement for 
Isreal by its sufferings, and the reason it did not was 
because God didn't design atonement should* be 
made in that way. I want you to bear this in mind ; 
perhaps he will continue to ask, and me to answer it, 
all day. 

Then he says that all creatures, both in Heaven 
and on earth heard I saying: " Blessing and honor 
and glory be to Him, etc." But I will read the verse : 
Revelations, v., 13 : " And every creature which is 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 165 

in Heaven and on the earth, and under the earth, 
and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, 
heard I saying, ' Blessing, and honor, and glory, 
and power be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne 
and unto the Lamb for ever and ever/ Here he 
says " every creature " means every man. How 
does he know that ? Does every creature mean 
every man or not ? Most assuredly. This means 
that there is to be a time when every man and every 
creature shall acknowledge the righteousness and 
sovereignity of God ; so the gift of God to us was in 
the best interest of the entire race. I believe that 
is its meaning, although men may be lost. When 
the whole work of Jesus Christ is completed — the 
whole work of Jesus Christ in the scheme of life and 
salvation, it will be realized that it has all been in 
the best interest of all the human family who have 
lived on the face of the earth. Life will be given to 
all men that will take it. 

To illustrate his position, he referred to the favor 
that was to be bestowed upon Ireland. Would it 
mean that that favor was extended to all the world ? 
No, the favor bestowed on Ireland belonged to Ire- 
land. But the gift of the Lord was extended to the 
whole world — to the entire race of mankind, not 
simply to Ireland or England. If a favor was to be 
bestowed upon Ireland, England or America, it 
would only interest Ireland, England or America. 



166 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

He refers again to the time that the Roman Em 
pire was taxed. It is true that the Roman Empire 
did not extend over all the world, but almost all the 
entire world was recognized as Roman, as the Ro- 
mans were ruling over nearly the whole world. Per- 
haps it was not all directly under the control of the 
Roman Empire, but at the same time the Roman 
Empire governed the whole world at that time. It 
could have been said that the Empire takes in all 
the world. We see the free gift of Jesus was for all 
men or the entire race. 

He was telling us that he had an Emphatic Diaglott 
along. If he will just turn to that passage, " as many 
as were ordained to eternal life," in the Emphatic 
Diaglott, he will find it does not read "ordained " 
to eternal life, but " disposed " to eternal life. He 
that is disposed to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ 
will be saved.' That is all he is required to do. It 
is the same as if it read : " as many as were dis- 
posed to eternal life.''* Every one that is disposed 
to come to Christ will be saved. So, according to 
the Emphatic. Diaglott, I am right. 

Well, then, in regard to the doctrine of Election 
and Predestination, it is not in the proposition at all. 
I have nothing to do with the doctrine of Election 
or Predestination. I am willing, under proper cir- 
cumstances and at a proper place, to meet Elder 
Potter to discuss the subject of Election or any other 
subject, but at the same time we have not met here 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 167 

to-day to discuss that subject. If he should see 
proper to spend his time on the doctrine of Election 
and Predestination, all right. If he wants to throw 
away his time on those subjects he may do so. I 
could have called on the Moderators to hold him to 
the question, but I was not disposed to do it. 

He has been off of the subject and onto Election, 
which is not in the proposition. But at the proper 
time I will have no hesitancy in meeting with Elder 
Potter, notwithstanding he is considered to be head 
and shoulders above anything in his denomination, 
while I am hardly an average man in my denomina- 
tion. 

Now, we will read here in 2 Corinthians, v., 18. 
If I do not show this congregation so clear that they 
can see, and my Brother Potter so clear, that he can 
see that> the idea he has presented, is incorrect in 
regard to the subject of the atonement. He is mis- 
taken, but I hardly expect him to get up here and 
say, " I am wrong." Brother Potter is a man of in- 
tellect; he is a man of sense, and cannot keep from 
seeing an argument when it is brought before him, 
and he cannot keep from seeing this. He said that 
atonement and reconciliation are the same thing. I 
have admitted that they are ; all of the authorities 
teach that it is true in regard to this matter. 

He says Jesus Christ made a complete atonement 
upon the cross. If it is complete it is lacking noth- 
ing. It contains everything that is necessary to the 



168 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

atonement, if such it was intended. Now, was it 
made there ? He says it was. What does inspira- 
tion say about it ? We are to be governed by what 
the Bible teaches. That is why we have met here 
to-day, not to take what I say, or what Brother Pot- 
ter says, but just what the Bible says. Does the 
word of inspiration teach that the atonement was 
made on the cross ? 

My brother yesterday consumed most of the time 
saying that reconciliation was made on the cross. 

But when he undertakes to prove to this congre- 
gation that that is where it was made, he undertakes 
to do something he is unable to accomplish, for the 
Bible gives us a different idea. It is given us so 
plain we cannot fail to see it. 2 Corinthians, v., 18, 
" And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us 
to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the 
ministry of reconciliation. " Somebody has been 
reconciled. Who is it ? The Corinthian brethren 
addressed in this letter. Here is the word " recon- 
ciled," — " hath reconciled us unto Himself," — "rec- 
onciled"' is in the past tense ; was finished, complet- 
ed, but I will show you that it is not used in the same 
sense as " reconciliation" as referred to by the 
Apostle Paul. Paul- says in Romans vii., 25 : "I 
thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then 
with the mind I myself serve the law of God ; but 
with the flesh of the law of sin." Even Paul was not 
reconciled in the body ; consequently we would de 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 169 

cide that complete reconciliation as referred to in in- 
spiration will not be completed on earth, or the Apos- 
tle Paul would have been reconciled. 2 Corinthians, 
v., 17, " Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a 
new creature, old things are passed away ; behold 
all things are become new." " And all things are of 
God who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus 
Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconcilia- 
tion.'' 

What did Brother Potter say we were reconciled 
by ? The atonement, he says. What does Paul say ? 
By Jesus Christ. Whi,ch are you going to take ? 
Which are you going to believe, Brother Potter or 
Paul ? Is my brother to be taken in preference to the 
voice of inspiration to the children of men ? The au- 
dience will take inspiration ; they may be inclined to 
believe otherwise, but at the same time they are not 
disposed to do it. I believe he is honest, but at the 
same time I do think he is in the wrong. 

He " hath given to us the ministry of reconcilia- 
tion." Now, the apostle goes on to say that God 
hath reconciled us by Jesus Christ, but hath given to 
us the ministry of reconciliation. He gave it to 
Paul — "hath given to us the ministry of reconcilia- 
tion. " According to that passage, it certainly was 
given to men, the ministry of reconciliation. My 
brother says it was on the tree of the cross. It was 
then impossible for it to be accomplished ; it was 
given into the hands of Paul and the Corinthians, 



170 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

and it was given into the hands of the elect of all 
ages. 

My brother's ideas are a contradiction of the ideas 
presented. He can never get out of that. Recon- 
ciliation is not yet complete. It is going on, if it 
means atonement, and atonement means reconcilia- 
tion. It is as clear as daylight that the ministry of 
reconcilation was delivered into the hands of the 
Apostle Paul, and the Corinthian brethren ; just as 
clear as sunshine. If this be true, reconciliation or 
atonement could not have been made on the cross. 
Paul goes on to say in the next verse, " That God was 
in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not 
imputing their trespasses unto them ; and hath com- 
mitted unto us the word of reconciliation. " 
This expresses reconciliation as incomplete ; as un- 
finished ; so it could not have been done when Jesus 
Christ was on earth. Reconciliation was not done 
when Christ was on the earth, notwithstanding He 
performed part of the work of the atonement, and 
came for the purpose of enlightening the nations of 
the earth, in setting them a proper example. 

There w r ere twelve apostles. I believe there were 
about five hundred thousand congregated, and three 
thousand were won into obedience on the day of 
Pentecost, out of the nations of the earth. That is, 
they were reconciled by Peter to whom the ministry 
of reconciliation was given. But it was necesaary 
that Christ should be crucified that the work might be 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 171 

fully accomplished, which He was sent to do. But 
He was not here reconciling the world ; that was given 
to the children of men, and the atonement is in pro- 
cess of completion. The ministry of reconciliation 
is placed in the hands of the people. It is not com- 
pleted. This grand work is still going on — the work 
which Jesus came to accomplish in the salvation of 
the children of men in all ages of the world. " To- 
wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world 
unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto 
them ; and hath committed unto us the word of rec- 
onciliation. " The word of reconciliation is commit- 
ted to us according to the Apostle Paul, 2 Corin- 
thians v., 19. 

Therefore, reconciliation is not yet complete, al- 
though without Jesus' death it could not be carried 
on. My brother would exclude the idea of God 
committing into our hands the ministry of reconcilia- 
tion, and says that reconciliation was complete, but 
was exclusively for the elect, and that it was for 
nobody else, and was made on the cross. He has 
been trying to get around reconciliation all day. 
He cannot find it said in the Bible that a complete 
atonement was made by Jesus Christ on the cross ; 
but it is committed into the hands of the people and 
is not comple. 

Now, in connection with this, I showed you yester- 
day that three things are to be done for men : Re- 
demption from under the law. This curse was placed 



172 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

on all men by our first parents in the garden of Eden. 
I showed most clearly that Jesus Christ, by His right- 
eousness, by His death on the cross, begun a work 
that is not complete, but that will eventually relieve 
every man that ever lived upon the face of the earth 
from the curse that was brought upon them by Adam 
as our first representative. None will be sent to hell 
because of the transgression of Adam. God will 
give all a chance to repent ; God will not let us be 
lost because of the action of our first representative. 
Jesus Christ, as our second representative, has be- 
gun the work of releasing the children of men from 
that curse ; this work is in process of completion, 
because, as I showed you yesterday, if we were re- 
deemed, we would be free from sin. Jesus has placed 
the tree of life in our reach, but we cannot yet par- 
take of the tree of eternal life. Therefore, there are 
yet things to be done in this work. 

All the children of men are to be free from sin 
and death. There is a work to be done by which 
enmity can be removed. But let me say a word 
here in regard to the word " reconciliation. " We 
know that, as I have said, enmity must exist before 
it can be removed, or before there can be a recon 
ciliation. Reconciliation is only necessary because 
of enmity, and there can be no reconciliation until 
there is enmity. I want to ask a question. Were 
we, who are here to-day, enemies of God when Christ 
died on the tree of the cross ? — we, who did not 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 173 

exist until eighteen hundred years afterward? No.. 
For the purpose of illustrating this point, he. 
■ says reconciliation was made on the cross. Mr.. 
Austin is a special friend of mine and I am of his 
We have had no difficulty, and I have no idea we 
ever will have. Suppose some person should come 
f up and say: " Reconciliation has been made be- 
ll' tween Mr. Austin and Mr. Dickey." Could it be 
true, when there had been no dispute ? Certainly 
not, but suppose we were to fall out, Reconcilia- 
tion could not be made when there was no differ- 
ence existing. Before there was enmity, there need 
be no reconciliation, but after the enmity exists, then 
there may be a reconciliation. But my brother has 
reconciliation made before there is any enmity ex- 
isting. That is just exactly the way he argues in 
regard to the reconciliation made on the cross. He. 
has it made before there was any enmity, just the 
same as if Mr. Austin aftid I could be reconciled 
without falling out. That is what he does. Recon- 
ciliation could be made here to-day between Mr. 
Austin and myself just as easily as it could have 
been made for us on the cross. One could be done 
just as easily as the other My brother cannot 
evade the force of this argument. 

There being enmity existing in the hearts of the 
children of men, God designs the work of reconcilia- 
tion or of atonement. He has given us to under- 
stand the teachings of His word. I realize most 
clearly the sufferings of the Savior on the cross. He 
is a grand Savior. He supplies us by this with. 



174 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

many blessings which we stand in need of, but we 
can never be free from sin or sorrow until our en- 
mity is removed. And the Apostle Paul says the 
ministry of reconciliation is given into our hands — 
into the hands of His people. This man, who is 
truly authorized by God to preach the Gospel, says 
that the ministry of reconciliation is given to us. We 
are to present them in His life, in His death and in 
His resurrection as God has commanded- us, and all 
who will receive the truth shall live eternally, if he 
will do as God requires him to do. 

To live a perfect life is impossible until enmity is 
removed. I hope that all enmity will be removed. I 
hope no one here will always hold enmity against God. 
I hope we may all do as we are commanded. I feel 
that I am reconciled to the will of God to do all He 
requires of me to do as an individual. Have I al- 
ways been this way ? No, my friends. Has Brother 
Potter always been so ? No, my friends. No man 
has ever existed that has always been disposed to be 
reconciled to the will of God to do all He requires 
of him. 

Therefore, reconciliation was not made by the 
death of Jesus. We must be reconciled to God that 
we may do His will and live in Heaven and enjoy 
eternal life ; that we may enjoy that Divine Grace 
that is provided for those that will believe on Him 
and meet all the requirements enjoined on us as in- 
dividuals in life. The ministry of reconciliation is 
placed in the hands of God's people. They could 
never be reconciled before they existed. The Bible 
does not teach it. There is something yet to be 
done. 

[Time Out.] 



CHAPTER XI. 



MR. POTTER S SIXTH SPEECH. 

Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I WAS just thinking before Brother Dickey sat 
down, that if we were to debate here about a week, 
we should get in earnest. I did not know that he had 
to have such a long start before he got well into the 
work. He has made the best speech just now that 
he has made at all ; but I could not see where the 
proposition came in. He is now just right back 
where we began yesterday, on the word reconcilia- 
tion. He says he believes he is reconciled to God. 
What by, Brother Dickey, was reconciliation made 
to God ? The first text I quoted yesterday said we 
were reconciled by the death of Christ. I dare him 
to say he was reconciled by anything else. I want 
him to notice this. He says he is reconciled ; the 
Scriptures say by the death of Christ. I ask when 
He did it. On the cross, the Scripture says ; was 



176 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

not your reconciliation made then ? He cannot see 
the difference between his reception of it and its 
being made. He thinks it never was made until he 
received it. Now, I am going to call his attention 
back to that text. He did begin at the wrong end 
yesterday. 

In the fifth chapter of Romans, beginning with 
the ninth verse, the Apostle says : " Much more, 
then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be 
saved from wrath through Him." Notice, "shall be 
saved," not have been ; but we are justified by His 
blood. " For if, when we were enemies, we were 
reconciled to God (Brother Dickey says he is) by the 
death of His Son." I want him to say whether he 
was reconciled to God by some other way or in some 
other place than on the cross and by the death -of 
Christ. He did not receive it then ; he received it 
sometime in the history of his life. Let the Apostle 
explain that. 

"For if, when we were enemies, we were recon- 
ciled to God by the death of His Son ; much more y 
being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." 
And not only so, but we also joy in God, through 
our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now re- 
ceived the atonement." We have now received the 
reconciliation. He has received it sometime during- 
his life. He thinks it was made then. Suppose you 
go down here to a shop and buy a wagon that was 
made at Chicago. Do you think it was made for 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 1'77 

you just when you received it ? No, sir; you know 
that wagon was made at Chicago without consulting 
you or waiting till you are ready to receive it. Is 
not that your understanding of it ? Just so with the 
atonement. We have now received the atonement— 
" by whom we have now received the atonement." 
How did we receive any atonement if there was 
none ? We did not exist, he says. Another thought 
on that. I have already explained all this; but 
Brother Dickey says reconciliation and atonement 
mean the same thing. The text says we were recon- 
ciled to God by the death of His Son ; hence, recon- 
ciliation was made by the death of His Son and we 
now receive it. We have now received it. Brother 
Dickey has not objected to my definition of the word 
atonement. I told you at the start that atonement 
meant satisfaction for sin, expiation of guilt, " to ex- 
piate a crime." These definitions he admits to be 
from standard authorities. He does not object to 
them* If that is what it means, Christ made recon- 
ciliation for our wrongs or sins, and that satisfaction 
was rendered on the cross. The reconciliation was 
made on the cross, and we receive it now. Let us 
go to 2 Corinthians, v, 19 : " To-wit, that God was 
in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." He 
is giving this reconciliation to His people every da y> 
Thev had not received it then, but they are receiv. 
o- "it all the time, as God is doing the work in 



12 



178 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Christ. But my brother thinks because they are not 
all actually perfect with God, that reconciliation has 
never been made at all. 

Another thought : He got up this morning and 
said that I had said that the salvation of the people 
depended on the atonement. I did say it. Now, 
because I say that he accuses me of denying its de- 
pendence on anything else. I did not say it de 
pended on the atonement exclusive of anything else. 
That is the very thing he charged me with ; but 
he did that on purpose. I do say that without the 
atonement nobody could be saved, but I did not say 
it saved anybody. 

I argue it was made on the cross, that, in addition 
to the atonement, everything else is done necessary 
to the completion of the salvation of the sinner. 

Everything that Christ does for sinners is as 
necessary to their salvation as the atonement was. 
I have not said that the atonement exclusively ever 
saved anybody. About "complete," he wants me to 
find the word complete or its equivalent. 

Then he accuses me of sophistry. I wonder what 
that is. When I am accused of anything I want to 
know what it is. I suppose sophistry is to talk right 
along on the subject in a debate. I do not want to 
misconstrue anything. I want him to understand 
just exactly what I believe. I believe nothing I am 
ashamed to tell. I want truth. That is what I am here 
for. I would love for the people to accept the 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 179 

truth. I do not love to be charged with sophistry 
when I have not used it. 

He undertook to answer my question ; he says he 
has answered it. Then he missed the question. I 
did not ask him why there was no atonement made 
on the cross. That is not the question. Did you 
understand it that way ? No sir. Well, that is the 
question he undertook to answer. That is his own 
question. He asked the question, then got up and 
answered it himself. 

If the. sufferings of Christ on the cross for sin was 
not for the purpose of atoning for sin, what was the 
suffering for ? That is the question. He has not 
answered it and never will. Talk about answering 
it half a dozen times, he has not answered it at all. 
What was the object of all His suffering for sin, as 
the Bible says He did, if that suffering did not atone 
for sin ? The Bible says He suffered for sin. If He 
did not atone for sin, then why did He suffer for sin ? 
Now you understand the question, I will leave that 
part of it. 

He says He suffered for as many as were dispos- 
ed to eternal life, and that the Emphatic Diaglott 
says, as many as were disposed, therefore the word 
ordained is wrong. Therefore, as many as were or- 
dained, are those people that were disposed. That is 
not the first time I have ever heard that. I have 
heard it every time I have discussed the question of 
election. 



180 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

There was a convention of scholars, acknowledged 
to be the best — they were together ten years to re- 
vise* the New Testament, which work is now com- 
monly known as the Revised Version of the New 
Testament. They were not all " Old Hardshell 
Baptists." I do not know whether one of them were 
or not. They were not holding any interest in 
election or predestination. Now, if that word " or- 
dained" was wrong, why didn't they change it ? 
They put it, in the Acts of the Apostles xiii., 48 : 
" As many as were ordained to eternal life believed." 
They dare not change it ; their scholarship, their 
reputation, everything was at stake ; they knew it 
was right. They left it ordained, just as it is in the 
authorized version, so it must be right, if every one 
of them said it was right ; and while I am in their 
company I believe I will remain there. 

He says he has nothing to do with the doctrine of 
election ; could have appealed to the Moderators to 
stop me ; that is strange. Does the proposition say 
anything about the elect ? Yes. Yet I have no 
right to talk about it ? They could stop me if he 
was to ask them to ? Do you think that is right ? 
My position is to affirm that Christ made an atone- 
ment for the elect. Talk about the proposition ! I 
thought last night when he got up and said: ''All 
come back to-day," that we would hear something. 
We have heard it. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 181 

Then he says I am head and shoulders above our 
brethren. That is a mistake, my brother. I am not 
" head and shoulders above my brethren/' We have 
men who are head and shoulders ahead of me. 

Dickey : — That is what they say around here. 
Your own brethren. 

That it may be. They are not acquainted with all 
our brethren, around here. We have plenty of men 
that are ahead of me, so far as that is concerned. 
More than that, Brother Dickey is an able man ; he 
is a noble man ; a gentlemanly man, and a worthy 
man. His brethren ought to be proud of him ; his 
brethren are proud of him, as any of their brethren in 
this country. I know what he is. 

I believe that is all I have noted. I will proceed 
to notice some more of my arguments. I believe I 
was talking before I sat down about people being 
called according to God's purpose. God had a pur- 
pose. They that love God are called according to 
that purpose, and were called according to that pur- 
pose. 

Will any man dare claim that he loves God. and 
yet was not called according to His purpose ? Why 
are those that love God called according to His pur- 
pose ? '"For," because, " whom He did foreknow, 
He also did predestinate," — to what? "to be con- 
formed to the image^ of His Son." What for ? " That 
He," — the Son — " might be the first born among 
many brethren." So, it seems, that God did predes- 



182 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

tinate some to be made like His Son. They are the 
ones that love God, and they that love God, are call- 
ed to do so, according to His purpose. The great 
and final end to be reached, was, that the Son might 
be the first born among many brethren. Did God 
intend that His Son should be the first born among 
many brethren ? He evidently did, and in order to 
bring that glorious end about, He predestinated all 
that will ever be made like Him, to that end. Ac- 
cording to that purpose, He calls them, as Paul said, 
" to the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ, our 
Lord," 1 Cor. i., 9. 

Surely all that God intended to call to love Him, 
will love Him. And just so surely none will ever 
love Him, that God does not call. Now, bear in 
mind, God does not predestinate to call them, and 
leave the matter with them, and if they would conde- 
scend to accept the call, He would conform them to 
the image of Jesus. Those whom He foreknew, He 
predestinated to be conformed to the image of His 
Son. That is what He predestinated. 

I have now given six texts of Scripture, all of 
which are clear and pointed on the subject of God's 
eternal purpose to save a people, and I claim those 
people to be the elect of God. They are the people 
mentioned in my proposition. I hold that this peo- 
ple, exclusive of all others, were embraced in the 
covenant of grace, and grace was also embraced in 
the covenant for them. All the conditions of this 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 183 

covenant are fulfilled by Christ, and He merits for 
them, and makes over to them, by His obedience 
and death, everlasting righteousness. They are 
elected from eternity in Him unto life eternal, and 
His death secures that life to them, so that their 
salvation is certain, and can never fail ; and this 
proves that there are no conditions of the nature of 
merit, unto salvation, under the covenant, which are 
required of the elect. All such conditions are per- 
formed by Christ their head and surety. But in 
order that they may become interested in, and par- 
take of the benefits of this covenant, there are cer- 
tain qualifications which must be and abound in 
them, even repentence and faith in our Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

These, however, are not of the nature of personal 
merit unto justification, but are the consequences of 
their election ; they are embraced in and are parts of 
the decree of that election ; they are the gifts of God, 
and will surely be wrought in them by the Holy 
Spirit of God freely given to them, to that end, 
through the merits and intercession of Christ, and I 
will say just here, that all the promises made to Christ, 
are made to the elect in Him, and are to them "the 
sure mercies of David;" and being made from eter- 
nity, they are fulfilled to them in time, and in due- 
order. The Lord beholds His chosen people with 
infinite complacency from eternity. He calls them 
into being on earth, protects and preserves them, and 



184 DEBATE OX ATONEMENT. 

leads them by a way they know not, and brings them 
into connection with the covenant of grace, in its ad- 
minisrattion, and in His own time and manner, visits 
them with His Holy Spirit, and effectually calls and 
justifies them in Christ, adopts them into His family, 
and in faithfulness carries on their sanctification, nev- 
er leaving nor forsaking them until death, after which 
they are received into Heaven, and are glorified with 
Christ forever. 

This is the great end looked to by God the Father, 
in the covenant, in which His Son was to be the 
great Mediator, and in which God chose all the elect, 
and predestinated them to be conformed to the 
image of His Son. 

To execute all the requirements of this covenant, 
Jesus Christ came into the world. He came here in 
the interest of the elect : He suffered for them, God's 
will embraced them, and He came to do the Father's 
will, and as I shall show before this debate closes, 
they were the only ones for whom He did suffer. 

In the pursuit of my arguments, I desire that the 
people understand that when I speak of the death of 
Christ, or the offering of Christ, or the atonement of 
Christ, or the sacrifice of Christ, I mean the same 
thing. If my brother does not, he must tell me what 
he means. It is enough for me to tell what I mean, 
and I shall only hold him responsible for what he 
means, provided he tells what he means. The rea- 
son I make this observation, is that, not only my op- 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 185 

ponent, in this debate, but many others find fault 
with me for advocating the doctrine of a limited 
atonement, when, perhaps, if we could get them to 
take a position and define it, they believe that the 
Son of God died for the entire race of men, but they 
do not believe that He made an atonement for any. 

That is one of my reasons for desiring this debate. 
I wish to be understood on the subject of the atone- 
ment, and I also wish to understand others. It is 
not sufficient for a man to say he believes in a uni- 
versal atonement, when he simply believes that in 
the death of Christ, He did not make any atone- 
ment, but simply made salvation possible for all the 
race. 

Atonement makes the matter of salvation certain, 
and no man can consistently advocate that Christ 
made an atonement for a man, and yet simply made 
his salvation possible. I argue that He did make an 
atonement for when some men He died for them, 
and therefore I claim that all that Christ died for 
will be eternally saved. To prove that point, I 
wish to call attention to Rom. v., 9, 10, 11 : " Much 
more, then, being now justified by His blood, we 
shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, 
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God 
by the death of His Son, much more, being recon- 
ciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only 
so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus 
Christ, by whom we have now received the atone- 
ment." 



186 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

I wish to notice this portion of the word of God 
very closely : " Much more, then, being now justified 
by His blood." Justified by what ? By His blood. 
When was His blood shed ? It was shed in His 
death. What did this blood do ? It justified. Whom 
did it justify ? If it did not justify all for whom it 
was shed, then there must have been some differ- 
ence, either in the persons for whom it was shed, or 
else the blood was not shed for all of them on the 
same principle. There is no evading the position 
that the blood justified somebody, and if the people 
were all alike in every respect, and He shed His 
blood for them all alike, and for the same reason, 
then, if it justified one of those for whom it was 
shed, it must, necessarily, have justified all for whom 
it was shed. I take the position that it did justify 
all for whom He shed His blood. I challenge con- 
tradiction on the point. So all for whom His blood 
was shed are justified, and their salvation is a per- 
manently fixed fact, for this text says : " Much more? 
then, being now justified by His blood, we may 
possibly be saved ? " No, sir. We shall be saved 
from wrath through Him. Salvation from wrath 
through Him is just as certain as that His blood was 
shed for us. That blood justified, and it justified all 
for whom Christ died. Show me a man that He died 
for, and I will show you a man for whom* He shed 
His blood. Show me a man for whom He shed His 
blood, and I will show you a man that is justified by 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 187 

that blood. Will any man say that a man that is 
justified will go to hell to suffer vengeance forever ? 
Just fancy, for a moment, a justified man in hell, be- 
ing punished ! Is it even possible to justly punish 
a justified man ? Such a thing will never take place 
in any court that acts justly, as to sentence a man to 
torment, and that man justified at the same time. 

" For if, when we were enemies, we were recon- 
ciled to God by the death of His Son." Reconciled 
to God by what ? By the death of His Son. By the 
death of His Son, and not by His life, or intercession, 
or anything else but His death. Was any one recon- 
ciled to God by the death of His Son ? The Apostle 
seems to think so, from this passage. Who were 
reconciled to God by His death ? I answer, all for 
whom He died. Show me the man for whom He 
died and I will show you one that was reconciled to 
God by that death. Now, remember we are on the 
subject of the death of Christ now. We were recon 
ciled to God by His death. Then what follows? 
" We shall be saved by His life." All that He died 
for were reconciled to God by His death, and all 
that were reconciled to God by His death shall be 
saved by His life. Therefore, all that Christ died 
for will be eternally saved. If I have given a 
wrong interpretation of this text, I wish my brother 
to say so, and if he does not, I shall take it for 
granted that he either concedes that point to me or 
else he cannot represent his own side of the present 



188 ^DEBATE OX ATONEMENT. 

issue. If I am wrong, I wish to be right, and I wish 
him to show me my mistake, if I am. I have already 
in the outset shown you the use and meaning of the 
the word "reconciliation," in the Scriptures — that 
reconciliation means atonement, so that when Christ 
made reconciliation, He made atonement, and when 
we receive the atonement, we receive the reconcilia- 
tion, which means the reconciliation made — not 
when we receive it — but when Christ died. " And 
not only so, but we joy in God through our Lord 
Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the 
atonement/" We have now received the atonement 
that was made for us on Calvary's cross, and on that 
account we joy in God through our Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

The cause of our justification is, that on the cross 
He bore our sins; as the Prophet says: " By His 
knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, 
for He shall bear their iniquities." Isa., liii.. 11. 

On what ground shall He justify ? For He shall 
bear their iniquities. If He, bearing the iniquities 
of one man, brings about the justification of that 
man, it seems to me that the same thing would bring 
about the justification of another man. I have al- 
ways been taught to think that the same cause, op* 
erating on the same material under the same circum- 
stances, would produce the same result. So, if one 
man is justified because Christ bore his iniquities, 
any other man, or all other men, whose iniquities He 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 18& 

bore, are justified, too, for the same reason. Hence, 
if He bore the sins of all the race of men, all the 
race of men will be justified ; but all the race are 
not justified, therefore He did not bear the sins of 
all the race of men, entire. 

It occurs to me that so far as my proving that all 
that Christ died for will be saved, I might as well 
stop where I am, for I believe I have now estab- 
lished that point beyond successful contradiction. I 
have only given two texts on that point, and would be 
glad if my worthy opponent would notice them. If he 
would show me that I am wrong in claiming that all 
that Christ died for will be saved, I will then be con- 
vinced of one point that he advocates — that is, I will 
be convinced that Christ made no atonement on the 
cross. I am certain thet He did make an atonement 
on the cross, the salvation of those for whom He 
atoned is certain, and when I become convinced that 
His death effected nothing in the final salvation of 
the sinner, then I will believe different from what I 
do now. I am here to be convinced if I am wrong, 
and to convince if I am right. 

But let us view the death of Christ from the con- 
ditional standpoint for a moment. The Scriptures 
teach us that the reason God sent His Son into the 
world to die was on account of His love. But God 
commendeth His love toward us, in that while we 
were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Again : 
" Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that 



190 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation 
for our sins." " God so loved the world that He 
gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth 
in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " 

Many other passages go to prove that love was the 
cause of His sending His Son into the world. Now, 
our conditionalist friends tell us that God has made 
a wonderful display of His love to fallen sinners, in 
that He sent His Son to die for them, and make 
salvation possible for them, or, in other words, put 
salvation in their reach. 

Now, it is evident that the Father knew, before He 
sent His Son into this world, what would be the re- 
sult. If He gave His Son to die for me, He knew 
whether I would be benefitted by that death or not, 
even if I must obey the Gospel in order to be saved. 
He knew whether I would obey or not, and just so of 
all others. 

Now, it is evident to all our Arminian friends, that 
a great many of the race of men will not obey the 
Gospel and be saved. God knew that would be so, 
yet He sent His son to die for those fellows, when 
He knew that death would do them no good. How 
much love did such a course as that manifest ? That 
would certainly be a wonderful exhibition of love. 
He loved a sinner so well that He delivered up 
His only begotten, innocent Son to die for him, 
when He knew it would not benefit him in the least. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 191 

We must either admit that the Father, when He 
gave His son to die for the sinner, knew that the 
sinner would be saved, or else He knew he would not 
be, or else He did not know whether he would be 
saved or not until He had tried him. 

Upon one of the horns of this trilemme we must 
ride, and I will give my opponent choice which he 
will ride. I know it looks like a terrible monster, 
but you must get on and take hold. Will you say 
that God knew that the sinner would not be saved 
before He gave His Son to die for him, and know- 
ing that He gave His Son to die for him ? If you 
do, I want you to tell what for. Will you say that 
the Father did not know what the result of the death 
of His Son would be, until He waits for events to 
take place, and He sees how matters will turn out ? 
Will you say that God sent His Son here on a mis- 
sion, that He knew before He sent Him would never 
be accomplished ? 

[Time Out.] 



CHAPTER XII. 



MR. DICKEY S SIXTH SPEECH. 

Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
T^E was asking me to explain when I was recon- 
i^ / ciled. I was not reconciled on the cross, be" 
cause I was not in existence at the time of the death 
on the cross. 

Elder Potter : — By what was you reconciled ? not 
when. 

Elder Dickey : — There was no enmity existing in 
my mind when Christ died on the cross. There can- 
not be reconciliation until there is enmity, therefore 
I was not reconciled then. There was no reconcili- 
ation made for me at that time, from the fact that 
there was no enmity existing then. 

The definition of the word shows clearly that rec- 
onciliation must follow after enmity exists. Now, I 
will say where I was reconciled: It was down where 
the battle-ground of Chicamauga was, that I thought 

13 



194 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

a change was made, when I was about thirteen years 
old. It was not back on the cross, eighteen hun- 
dred years ago, before I came into existence. There- 
fore, when I became reconciled to God I was recon- 
ciled there. Now, reconciliation cannot be made 
until the time it is received, and no one can make a 
reconciliation between two parties prior to the exist- 
ence of the difference. 

How in the world could a reconciliation be made 
between Mr. Austin and myself for a difference that 
was to take place twelve months afterward ? There 
is no enmity, consequently there can be no reconcili- 
ation made until there is something to be reconciled. 
What is making reconciliation ? It is bringing two 
parties together ; putting away an offense that exists 
between two individuals. There is no offense exist- 
ing, therefore you cannot make a reconciliation until 
the offense comes into existence. Reconciliation is 
made at the very instance, at the very time, that two 
individuals are brought together. 

Then he inquires again into the sufferings of 
Christ. I have tried to make that clear, and I be- 
lieve that everybody almost has seen it. The suffer- 
ings of Christ was a necessary step towards making 
an atonement. If He had not died on the tree of 
the cross, no atonement would have been made. He 
could not have died without suffering. The suffer- 
ing was necessary to bring about the death, and the 
death was necessary to bring about the atonement. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 195 

It was necessary that the blood of Christ be shed, 
but the atonement was not made while Christ hung 
upon the cross ; it was not made by the suffering of 
Jesus Christ, but by the blood that was shed by 
Jesus Christ. Therefore, the position that it 
was made by the death of Jesus Christ, that it was 
by His sufferings, is incorrect. It was not made by 
His death, but by His blood. If it was made by His 
blood, it was not made by His death. 

His death taking place and the sufferings that 
transpired were only necessary steps towards accom- 
plishing the work of making the atonement. 

In regard to the Testament. He says .a number 
of good fellows revised the New Testament Scrip- 
tures, and have given that text all right, as they have 
made it " ordained'' instead of " disposed." to eter- 
nal life. " Ordained" is the old word, and he will 
stick to the old one, but he will not stick to the old 
one in all the texts. What suits him, he takes, and 
he will not take the word " disposed," it will not suit. 
We claim that " disposed" means, just like it does in 
the old, to be inclined. I have an idea he would not 
agree to take all the revised. It would not suit him so 
well on baptism, for he would not prove immersion 
by it. It has given us the word baptize, and not 
immerse. 

He says the death of Christ made salvation secure 
for the elect. I understood that is what he said, but 
he will correct me if it is not right. In his last 



196 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

speech, in reading, I understood him to say that the 
death of Christ made salvation secure for the elect. 
Is that true ? Does it make salvation secure for the 
elect? Then he says that the death took place on the 
cross ; then, if this is true, I say that that saves sin- 
ners. There is no possible way that I can see, for 
him to get out of that conclusion, that if the death of 
Christ secures the salvation of the elect, it saves 
them. 

Then he says the blood of Christ justifies all for 
whom it was shed. Is that correct ? — that the death 
made salvation secure for the elect, and that the 
blood of Christ justifies all for whom it was shed ? 
If that is so, if Christ had not rose from the dead, 
atonement would have been made. Salvation was 
secured for the elect, and no one but them were jus- 
tified by His death on the cross. All others would 
be turned into hell. No individual would have been 
saved without the death of Christ, according to this 
position ; yet he says that the death alone does not 
save them. My brother is first on one side and then 
on the other, but he makes it all depend on the cross, 
as he has the atonement made there. 

He says the atonement is made by the blood shed 
on the tree of the cross, yet the Apostle Paul says if 
Christ had not risen from the, dead, then is our faith 
in vain, and that we are of all men most miserable. 
I say the death of Jesus Christ was necessary; I say 
that the shedding of the blood was necessary in the 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 197 

great scheme of salvation, but I do also claim that 
no one could have been saved if Jesus Christ had 
not rose from the dead. If salvation was secured 
simply by the death of Jesus Christ, it was not se- 
cured for any who are living now, for they were then 
not in existence. 

He speaks again in regard to Christ dying for all. 
I read here yesterday a passage Qf Scripture in re- 
gard to Jesus Christ dying for all. I hardly think it 
necessary for me to go back to this passage again, 
for I presented it to this congregation yesterday eve- 
ning, showing that Jesus Christ did die for all, that 
those who believe in him might be saved. He died 
for sinners. Who has lived sinners ? Everybody. 
What did He die for ? All. What for ? That they 
might live unto Him. Christ died for all men, as I 
read yesterday. Jesus Christ tasted death for every 
man ; died for t all that they might henceforth live 
unto Him. Paul says He tasted death for every 
man, and if this be true, He died for. all. The ar- 
gument of my brother is that if Tesus Christ died for 
all, He saves all ; that all that He died for, He will 
save. 

Another thing, if I do not misunderstand him — 
and if I do, he will correct me — I understand that 
he represents that there is no resurrection of all the 
human family ; if he does not, he will correct me in 
regard to that. He says if there is a resurrection of 
the entire human family, that Christ died for all; or 



198 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

that all are to be resurrected from the dead that 
Christ died for. Could He rise for a man that He 
never died for ? This would be impossible, for Him 
to rise for an individual that He never died for. If 
He didn't die for an individual, how could He be 
raised for that individual ? If He is not raised for 
an individual, He cannot restore him to life from the 
dead ; yet all men are to be resurrected. Again, I 
conclude that my brother does not understand all the 
word of God. 

In regard to the suffering being for the redemp- 
tion of men, I claim that justice demanded the suf- 
ferings. Man was placed here in the world and a 
law was given for man's government. This law was 
violated and our sinful natures were inherited. So 
I say that justice demanded there should be an in- 
terposition of divine mercy, which was necessary to 
the carrying out of the great scheme of salvation for 
a lost and ruined world as ours was. 

We were in possession of sinful natures, but the 
great scheme of salvation was provided, and Jesus 
Christ came into the world to relieve men. The en- 
mity existing in the minds of men made it necessary 
for an atonement to be made. That is the reason an 
atonement was necessary. How is this atonement 
to be made ? Some person must be properly au- 
thorized by God to make it in this life. Individuals 
have been selected for the purpose of making an 
atonement for Israel, by which Israel might be recon- 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 199 

ciled to God. God selected the individuals and had 
them ordained to the work that they were to perform. 

Leviticus, viii., 12 : " And He poured of the 
anointing oil upon Aaron's head and anointed him 
to sanctify him." We see by this that Aaron was ap- 
pointed by God to become High Priest, to make 
reconciliation for the people of Israel. This recon- 
ciliation was to be made by Aaron and no one else. 
It would have brought instant death upon any who 
attempted it, for the violation of the law of God. 

Hence, I say, in regard to how reconciliation or 
atonement was to be made for the people, that some 
one was selected for the purpose of making atone- 
ment for the sins of the people. Aaron was selected 
to be High Priest for Israel, and was to make atone- 
ment for all those who would believe in Him. He 
was the means by which reconciliation might be 
made for the people. 

If you will read Exodus xxix., 7 to 30, you will 
find a description of the kind of apparel that was to 
be worn by them, so their very garments were im- 
portant. They were to have crowns upon their 
heads, and their garments were to be made of cer- 
tain materials, and I have thought this was to repre- 
sent the character of Jesus Christ. They must have 
on these garments before they could make an atone- 
ment, or before they could enter into the holy of 
holies there to make atonement for the sins of the 
people. So Jesus Christ must be clothed in His 



200 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 



priestly garments when He makes intercession for 
those that believe on His name. I would like to go 
on with this point and give some ideas in regard to 
it, but I have not time. Christ made an atonement 
for the sins of the world. God selected Him to be 
our High Priest, and He selected Aaron and his 
sons to be the High Priests for the people of Israel ; 
He gave directions and even told them the garments 
they were to wear, and everything pertaining to what 
He would have him to do, by which atonement could 
be made for the sins of the people. 

Then you will find in Leviticus xvi., 2 : " And the 
Lord saith unto Moses, speak unto Aaron, thy 
brother, that he come not at all times into the holy 
place within the vail before the mercy seat which 
is in the ark ; that he die not, for I will appear in 
the cloud upon the mercy seat." Thus we see that 
Aaron was not permitted at all times to enter into 
the holy place ; not permitted at all times to make 
an atonement, but he must sanctify himself before 
entering, according to the commandment. 

My brother again asks why atonement is not made 
by sufferings. I do not know, except that instead of 
taking the sufferings to make an atonement, it was 
the will of God that it should be made by blood, and 
not by suffering. If we were taught that it was to 
be made by His sufferings and not by His blood I 
would say it was by His sufferings. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 201 

The atonement made here on earth, my brother 
admits, was a type or a figure of the atonement that 
was to be made by Jesus Christ. This was the way 
that God was instructing Israel, in bringing them to 
understand the atonement by which he was to en- 
lighten his people. If Israel could realize how the 
atonement was to be made by Jesus Christ some 
fifteen hundred years before, surely we ought to have 
a correct understanding of it after Christ had come 
into the world. My brother claims that it was made 
complete on the tree of the cross, which I deny ; yet 
I think by following the figure, or the type, that we 
might understand how the atonement was made. Let 
us read Leviticus xvi., 5 : " And he shall take of the 
congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the 
goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt 
offering. ,, 

There were certain animals selected ; now, why 
was it that God did not select some other kind from 
the congregation ? I think I can see why it was. 
The lamb could represent the character of Christ 
better than some other beast, that He could have 
taken. Accordingly the lamb was selected, and cer- 
tain other animals were taken for burnt offerings. 
The lamb was a clean animal ; therefore God select- 
ed likewise. Jesus Christ as the one person, as the 
only one that was capable of making the atonement 
that He intended to be made for those that would 
believe on Him. The priest was to take two kids of 



202 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

the goats of the congregation of the children of Israel, 
and present them to the Lord. Suppose Aaron had 
not taken the two goats, but had only taken one of 
them. Would it have been acceptable in the sight 
of God. Don't you remember some of the people 
concluded it would be very nice not to do exactly as 
they had been told in putting incense in, thinking it 
would do as well ? So they took strange fire and set 
the incense afire with this, contrary to the instruc- 
tions of God. They died right straight. God takes 
life for violating a command or requirement. It is 
a great wrong to fail to do what God requires of us, 
or enjoin upon us. 

Aaron was to take two goats, and the sacrifices for 
the congregation were to be made at the door of the 
tabernacle. One was to be killed — only one 
was to be killed — the other was to be the atonement 
for Aaron, when he had entered the tabernacle, pro- 
vided he had not killed the goat. This was all es- 
sential ; it must be done as commanded. The atone- 
ment was to be made by the death or by the blood 
of that goat. 

Just so it is with the Lord Jesus Christ. His 
death alone did not make an atonement, but without 
His death there could have been no atonement 
made. There could have been no atonement made 
by the High Priest if he had not killed the lamb, 
but the killing did not make the atonement , that 
was made in the tabernacle by the blood which was 
brought in by the priest. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 203 

The goat was killed at the door, and the priest 
must lay his hands on it and acknowledge the sins of 
the people. Only one was to be killed ; the other 
was to be let go. Aaron was to take fire and put in- 
cense on it inside the veil. The sacrifice was not 
only to be made outside the veil, but outside the 
tabernacle. ¥/as this all of men ? No sir. The 
God of Heaven had given Moses exact instructions 
as to what should be done in order to this atonement. 

Leviticus, xvi., 13, " And he shall put the incense 
upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the 
incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the 
testimony that He dib not." This description is 
found in Leviticus xvi., 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13. We 
will begin at the fourteenth verse : " And he shall 
take of the blood of the bullock and sprinkle it with 
his finger upon the mercy seat eastward ; and before 
the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his 
finger seven times." We see the priest must 
sprinkle the blood seven times, before he could make 
an atonement for the sins of the people. God told 
him just exactly how to make this atonement. 

Was it made outside when the lamb was killed ? 
No sir. It was made by the blood in the taber- 
nacle. Are we to go by this figure ? Is it to be 
taken or not ? Yes, sir, and according to the figure 
the atonement has not yet been made. So when Te- 
sus Christ died on the tree of the cross the blood was 
spilled, but the atonement was not made, if this was 



204 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

the figure of the work. I think there is no doubt 
about that figure referring to the atonement — about it 
being a type of that which was to be made by Christ. 
I believe my brother will agree. 

I wish to read the same passage as before, Leviti- 
cus xvi., 14, " And he shall take of the blood of the 
bullock and sprinkle it with his finger upon the 
mercy seat eastward ; and before the mercy seat 
shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven 
times. " I ask now, after the blood has been shed, 
after the beast has been killed, after the priest has 
taken the blood into the tabernacle and entered into 
the holy of holies and sprinkled the blood seven 
times bpon the mercy seat, whether the atonement 
was made then or not ? If you will look carefully, 
you will find that atonement was not yet made. The 
atonement was to be made by the blood of the bul- 
lock ; this was necessary to be done by Aaron as 
High Priest, according to the instructions of the God 
of Heaven. This blood was to be sprinkled on the 
mercy seat, after the bullock had been killed. 
When this blood has been shed, been taken in the 
tabernacle, when the priest had entered into the 
holy of holies, clothed according to the specifica- 
tions of the God of Heaven, he represents the char- 
acter of the Lord Jesus Christ, when He is to make 
an atonement for those that will believe on Him. 
But there was something else to be done when he 
came out of the tabernacle ; this was to kill the goat 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 205 

for a sin offering. This was another thing to be 
done, and he was also to make a sin offering for 
himself, and he was to sprinkle the blood of the goat 
for a sin offering on the mercy seat, as was the blood 
of the bullock. 

When the iamb was to be killed for a sacrifice, it 
represents the characcer of Christ as Aaron did. 
Then i£ Christ is to be a priest, Hewas to" take the 
blood, to go into the holy of the holies and make an 
atonement with it. The blood of the lamb represents 
the blood of Christ. The High Priest was to take 
the blood of the lamb that was slain at the door of 
the tabernacle, enter into the holy of holies, and 
make an atonement for the sins of the people. When 
the lamb was slain there was no atonement made^ 
Now, if this is a figure of the death of Jesus Christ — 
if it is, when Christ died, there was no atonement 
made, and whoever teaches that it was, is mistaken 
about it. Were Moses and the writers of the di- 
vine Scripture mistaken in regard to it when they 
wrote ? They teach that the atonement was not 
made when the lamb was slain at the door. Can it 
then be possible that my brother is right in regard 
to this matter ? If the atonement was made when 
Christ died, it was made when the lamb was slain. 
If Brother Potter has got ahead of the Scriptures, I 
will admit he is a long ways ahead of me. I know, 
from the teachings of God's word that atonement 
was not made outside of the tabernacle ; neither was 



206 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

atonement made by Jesus on the cross. If one is 
correct the other must be correct. If atonement was 
not made when the lamb died, it was not made 
when Jesus Christ died. My brother must admit 
that the priest must go into the holy of the holies ; 
he must enter there, taking the blood of the lamb ; 
he must go according to the specified directions, 
clothed in his priestly robes, showing the character 
of the Lord Jesus Christ when He ascends to the 
throne of God, and sits in the presence of the image 
on high, for the purpose of reconciling those that 
will believe on Him in all ages of the world. So 
my brother cannot be correct, provided that Moses 
knew what he was talking about when he said that 
atonement was made in the holy of the holies, rather 
than when the life of the lamb was taken. 

[Time Out.] 



CHAPTER XIII. 



MR. POTTER'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 

Brethten, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

HOPE the people will listen and let everybody 



i 



else listen as much as they can. I wish to re- 
mind the people of one or two things that occurred 
during the last speech of my brother. When he first 
arose he. said that I asked the question when or 
where was he reconciled to God. That is a mistake. 
I did not ask that question. I believe he is recon- 
ciled to God, and it has been sometime during his 
life ; but I asked the question : By what was he 
reconciled to God ? I asked him if he was recon- 
ciled to God by the death of Jesus Christ, as the 
Scriptures say. He did not answer my question, but 
goes to one of his own and answers it. It would be 
a very easy matter to debate, to ask questions and 
then answer them himself. One side would whip, 
certain. 



208 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Remember, he dare not tell you he was reconciled 
to God by the death of Jesus Christ, according to 
the position he has taken. That is the reason he 
has not answered it. If he can tell you that, let him 
do so. Could he be consistent if he says there must 
. be enmity, and he was not an enemy when Christ 
died ? If so, he was not "reconciled by the death of 
Christ, and the Apostle Paul says we were recon- 
ciled to God by the death of Christ ; nothing else to 
which it is ever ascribed. We receive that recon- 
ciliation. Brother Dickey received it sometime 
during his life. It doesn't matter to me where or 
when, but I would love for him to tell me whether 
he was reconciled to God by the death of Christ or 
not. That is all I wish to say about that. 

Another thought : He said yesterday that I began 
at one end of the question and he at the other. He 
has passed me now. He is talking about the other 
end of the question. I did not see him pass. He 
did not come past where I was. He is arguing the 
question this morning, whether the atonement was 
made on the cross or not. Truly, he did begin at 
the wrong end, sure enough ; he is talking on the 
wrong end of the proposition to-day. 

Mr. Dickey : Wrong end for you, Brother Potter. 

Mr. Potter : When I sat down I was talking on 
the fact that it was the love of God that sent His 
Son into the world to die for sinners. I referred to 
and quoted a text stating that fact. But how much 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 209 

love would be manifested for the sinner, for God to 
send His own son into the world to suffer and die, if 
He knew, when He sends Him, that the sinner 
would not be benefitted by it ? I had commenced 
to illustrate it by this : 

How much charity would the good Christian peo- 
ple of Illinois manifest towards the poor sufferers of 
the drougth-stricken portion of Texas, if they would 
ship fifty thousand rations down there, and at the 
same time know that it would never get there, and 
that it would not benefit those poor sufferers one 
particle ? You, no doubt, would tell me that there 
could be no charity in such an act. So I tell you, 
that God manifests no love to a man in giving His 
son to die for Him, when at the same time He knew 
it would do the man no good. I hold that such 
doctrine is derogatory to the character of God. 

In favor of my proposition, I base an argument on 
the subject of redemption. Christ is called the Re 
deemer, in the Scriptures, and the apostles say : 
" Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law ; 
being made a curse for us, for it is written cursed is 
every one that hangeth on a tree," Gal. iii., 13. To 
redeem is to buy back that which is forfeited, sold, 
or lost, and there is no law human or divine that 
knows anything about a conditional redemption. 
Redemption is always absolute. A thing is either 
redeemed, or it is not redeemed. If it is redeemed, 
it is because the full price has been paid. This is 
always the case in the redemption of anything. 

14 



210 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Hence, if Christ has redeemed us from the 
curse of the law, He has paid the full redemp- 
tion price. It is enough for us to know that 
He has redeemed us, to warrant us the belief 
that He has paid the full price of our redemption. 
If He has redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
then He has satisfied the claims of law that were 
against us. If He has settled all claims and de- 
mands against us, then we are not called on to pay 
them a second time. The same law that once held 
its claims against us and justly demanded satisfac- 
tion at our hands, has taken hold of Jesus, our sure- 
ty, and has taken its vengeance on Him, and there- 
fore, we are set at liberty from all its claims for they 
have been settled, and justice now demands the 
release of the prisoner. 

But what is to be the result of this redemption ? 
Sins are going to be remitted, for Paul says, " In 
whom We have redemption through His blood, the 
forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His 
grace," Eph. i., 7, As a result of this redemption, 
sinners are going to be brought in to the full enjoy- 
ment of all that redemption means. We read in 
Isaiah, xxxv., 8, 9, 19, " And a high way shall be 
there, and a way, it shall be called the way of holi- 
ness ; the unclean shall not pass over it ; but it shall 
be for those wayfaring men, though fools shall not 
err therein. No lion shall be there, nor any raven- 
ous beast shall go up thereon ; it shall not be found 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 211 

there, but the redeemed shall walk there. And the 
ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion 
with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads, they 
shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sigh- 
ing shall flee away." 

Now, you will bear in mind that in this passage, 
the Lord, by His prophet, speaks of the way of holi- 
ness, and He emphatically declares that the re- 
deemed shall walk there, — that is, they shall walk in 
the way of holiness. Who shall walk there ? The 
redeemed. Where shall the redeemed walk ? In 
the way of holiness. This text does not say that all 
the race of men shall walk in the way of holiness, 
but it does say the redeemed shall walk there, and I 
believe the text. 

I wish my opponent would tell us whether or not 
he believes the redeemed shall walk in the way of 
holiness. I am of the opinion that we will not hear 
him say. If he says the redeemed shall walk in the 
way of holiness^ which this Scripture says they shall, 
then he has either to be a Universalist, or admit that 
there are some of the race not redeemed. I say 
that the text is true. I believe the redeemed will 
walk in the way of holiness. I challenge my brother 
to say he does. I do not believe all the race of 
men will walk in the way of holiness. I dare him to 
agree with me on this question. If he says that he 
believes the redeemed will walk in the way of holi- 
ness, and then says that he does not believe that all 



212 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

the race of men will walk there, he admits special 
redemption. I want him to say. We have a right 
to request him to say, and not only request him, but 
we have a right to expect .him to say. I fancy 
his brethren will be disappointed if he does not say. 
I shall be considerably disappointed if he does. 
All he is required to do is to say he believes that 
the redeemed will walk in the way of holiness, just 
as the Scripture says they shall, or else say he does 
not believe it, one or the other. I should think he 
would say that he believes they will walk there. If 
he does, then we are getting along very well. I 
think my position is well sustained now, whether he 
admits it or not. 

There are some difficulties in my way, in believing 
in a general atonement, and only a partial salvation . 
I do not believe that all the race of mankind will be 
saved, and I do not see the consistency in Jesus suf- 
fering for the sins of a man, and yet doing the man 
no good. What good does the death of Christ do 
the wicked and finally impenitent, even if He does 
suffer for their sins, which He did, if He died for 
them. We cannot be mistaken in saying that He 
suffered for sins, for the Bible positively says He 
did ; so if we deny that He made an atonement on 
the cross, we must admit that He suffered for sins 
on the cross, and I maintain that He made an atone- 
ment. But here is the difficulty involved in the doc- 
trine, that He suffered for all the race, and then 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 213 

some of them are lost. Take the rich man, for in- 
stance : The Savior gave an account of this man 
during His ministry, and according to the account, 
the rich man must have been tormented in hell at 
the very time Jesus suffered on the cross. Now, let 
us draw a picture here that all can see. Let us con- 
verse with the rich man a moment. Rich man, what 
are you doing down here ? The rich man says : " I 
am suffering/' " For what ? " " For my sins that I 
committed in the world. " " Is your suffering just ? " 
41 Yes ; I was a wicked man in the world, and I am 
now reaping the just retribution for my sins." li Do 
you hope to ever be released from this suffering ? '* 
" No ; I am here forever." 

Here we leave him, and turn to the Roman cross 
and see Jesus on the tree in agony and blood, sur- 
rounded by the most infuriated mob that ever sur- 
rounded a victim on earth, and ask Him : " Son of 
man, what are you doing upon the cross ? " He 
answers : "lam suffering." " What for ? " " For 
sins." " Whose sins ? " " All the race of men." 
" Are you suffering for the sins of the whole human 
race ?" " Yes, for the whole race." " Are you suf- 
fering for the sins of the rich man in hell ? " " Yes, 
his sins as well as others." 

Now, what have we ? We have the rich man in hell 
suffering for his sins, and, at the very same moment, 
we have Jesus on the cross, suffering for the rich 
man's sins. Is that the manner in which God deals 



214 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

with His people, and His Son ? Now, if I am mis- 
taken in this view of the matter, I wish to be cor- 
rected. If Jesus Christ did suffer for the sins of a man 
that was in hell when He suffered, did not Jesus 
suffer the same offenses for which the wicked in hell 
suffered ? I do not believe He suffered for any that 
were in hell when He suffered, for if He did, they 
ought to come out of there. I do not believe that 
He suffered for any that will ever be in hell, for if 
He suffered for them, they should not go there. So 
you see it is not hard to understand me, that He suf- 
fered for none that will be lost. 

Those for whom He suffered, He ransomed, and 
the Bible emphatically says : w And the ransomed of 
the Lord shall return and come to Zion," and I 
simply believe it. That is where I stand. Jesus 
says : " I came into the world to save sinners. " 
11 The son of man is come to seek and to save that 
which was lost." He did not merely come to die 
for them and then send them to torment forever. I 
wish now to state again that there is not a single 
text that says in so many words that Jesus Christ 
died for all the race of men. Had there been such 
a text I presume we would have heard it before this 
in this discussion. There is nothing like it in the 
whole book. 

I now wish to give you a few texts on the death of 
Christ that I will not locate at present, but if my 
brother wishes to look at some of them, I will find 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 215 

them for him : " By His knowledge shall my right- 
eous servant justify many ; for he shall bear their 
iniquities. " He said many in this text, and not the 
whole race. In the same chapter he says : " And 
he bare the sin of many. Is. liii. When the Savior 
instituted the supper, He said : " This is my blood 
which is shed for many for the remission of sins." 
The Apostle says : " For it became Him for whom are 
all things and by whom are all things, in bringing 
many sons unto glory to make the Captain of their 
salvation perfect through sufferings," Heb. ii., 10. 
In another place in the same letter he says : " So 
Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and 
to them that look for Him will He appear again, the 
second time without sin unto salvation." 

I have given you five texts, all bearing on the 
death of Christ, in which the word many occurs. The 
word many in these texts seem more to express the 
matter in a restricted sense than to contrast the 
number for whom He died with the idea of only a 
few. Suppose I ask you : " were all your members 
out to meeting last Sunday ? " and you answer 
me by saying : " many of them were there, " or by 
saying : u many were there." Would you suppose I 
would" think that they were all there ? Suppose, 
then, you ask the Bible : did Christ die for all the 
race of men ? and you find where it says He died, 
suffered for many, do you think you would come to 
the conclusion from such an expression as that, that 



216 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

He died for all the race ? I feel like those expres- 
sions are clear that, at least in these passages, only 
a portion of the race is meant. Now, those same 
many whose sins He bare, He justified. 

But sometimes I am told that if God did not give 
His Son to die for the sinner, He could not be just and 
send the sinner to hell. If that is so, I would love to 
know if it would not have been infinitely better for the 
world of mankind if Christ had not died for any ? 
For if He cannot send the sinner to hell justly without 
the death of Christ, He could have justly kept him 
out of hell without His death, and I am certain that 
if God could not send the sinner to hell justly, 
He would not send them there at all, so if He 
could not send the sinner to hell without the 
death of Christ, it would be better for the sinner if 
Christ did not die for him, for then he could not be 
sent to hell. But now, according to that doctrine, 
that Christ has died for him, if he does not accept 
Christ, God can justly send him to hell. What good 
has the death of Christ done, according to that po- 
sition? He has not saved anybody from hell, if 
that be true, for none could have gone there if He 
had not died. But according to that view, how is it 
now that Christ has died ? Why, hell is filled up 
with millions. That doctrine makes the death of 
Christ necessary to the damnation of the sinner. It 
does more ; it teaches that sinner that his wicked- 
ness and all his abominable acts that he is guilty of 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 217 

in the world do not justify God in punishing him, 
but now, as guilty as he is, before he be justly punished? 
Christ must die for him. That very doctrine is licen- 
tious in its nature. But, instead of it being true, no 
sinner can be justly saved withont the death of 
Christ. The sinner is guilty, and for his guilt he is 
justly exposed to the penalty of the law that he has 
broken, and unless Christ suffers for his sins he can- 
not be saved. He must suffer for his sins himself if 
Jesus did not suffer for him. But if Jesus suffered 
for the sinner, that releases the sinner. That is the 
reason I argue that all for whom Christ died will be 
eternally saved. 

> I hope my brother will notice those things, and 
tell us where our mistake is. if he can, for if I am in 
an errror I do wish to get right. 

I wish now to offer a few thoughts on the subject 
of the intercession of Christ, in connection with His 
death. The intercession of our Savior has consid- 
erable to do in the matter of our salvation. His 
intercession is often referred to by the apostles, as a 
matter of great consolation to the saints. 1 John, ii., 
1 : " My little children, these things write I unto 
you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have 
an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the right- 
eous." 

I presume that the intention of the inspired 
apostle, in the use of this language was to comfort 
and console the children of God, who are so sensible 



218 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

of their many weaknesses and sins. It is certainly 
a great comfort to one who feels his own unworthi- 
ness, to have the assurance that he will be heard of 
the Father, to be assured that there is one pleading 
his cause that the Father never denies. This 
consolation is abundantly given to the dear little 
ones of the Lord's fold, in the divine volume. No 
doubt many have taken shelter under the blessed 
thought that " though I am a poor, sinful, imperfect 
creature at best, Jesus knows all about it, and prays 
the Father to forgive me," 

If a prisoner is brought into court to be tried for 
some grave offense, he desires an attorney — if it was 
possible for him to have such a one, that could 
always have the ear of the court. If he could be so 
favored, he has nothing much to dread. Jesus 
Christ is such an attorney for His children. There 
is, however, this difference between them. The 
lawyer at the bar, in defense of his client, pleads 
that his client is not guilty, while the Savior pleads 
the guilt and unworthiness of His people, but begs 
mercy for them, on the ground of His atonement for 
them. Would it, do you think, be much consolation 
to you to know that Christ interceded for you, if you 
had no assurance that the Father would hear Him ? 
I presume not. But from the very fact that you 
confidently believe that the Father hears Him, you 
are comforted to think that He prays to the Father 
for you. But are we assured that the Father will 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 219 

hear the Son when He prays to Him ? Let us no- 
tice that point one moment. This was the confi- 
dence that Martha had in the Son when Lazarus 
died. " Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother 
had not died. But I know that even now, whatso- 
ever thou will ask of God, God will give it thee." 
John xi., 21, 22. Also verses 41, 42. Jesus says : 
" Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard me. 
And I know that Thou hearest me always." 

From this expression I am led to believe that the 
Father always hears Jesus when He prays. In fact, 
I can see nothing in the intercession of Christ to 
comfort and encourage the Christian if he does not 
believe that He is heard of the Father. But Chris- 
tians, I presume, do all believe that the intercession 
of Christ always prevails with the Father. Then let 
us set it down, at the start, as a fixed fact, that the 
Father always hears Him. I presume my brother 
will not deny that. The intercession of Christ is not 
unfrequently mentioned in connection with His 
death in the Bible. Isa. liii., 12 : " And He bare 
the sin of many, and made intercession for the trans- 
gressors." In this text we are presented with the 
thought of His death and intercession both, and I 
am led to believe that they are connected in the 
grand scheme of the salvation of sinners. Rom. 
viii., 34 : " Who is He that condemneth ? It is 
Christ, that died, yea, rather that is risen again, who 
is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh 
intercessions for us." 



220 DEEATE OX ATONEMENT. 

It is very clear that, in this text, the apostles defies 
the power of anyone to condemn the people of God. 
God has justified them, and there are no appeals 
from His court, and so if He is for us. none can be 
against us successfully. And the plea the apostle 
uses for thinking none can condemn, is that Christ 
died. I wonder how he could with so much confi- 
dence base hope upon the death of Christ, if the 
death of Christ simply made the salvation of the 
race of men possible. If it simply made salvation 
possible, it might be. and is most certain to be, that 
some one will condemn, even if Christ did die. Paul, 
you need not refer us to the death of Christ as a 
guarantee that none shall condemn, for that does not 
suffice now, for men are contending to-day that men 
for whom Christ died will ultimately be condemned. 
But no, Paul would not have it that way. He argues 
that if Christ died and intercedes for the sinner, 
;; who is it that condemneth ? " I argue from this 
text that Paul taught the doctrine, that if Christ died 
for the sinner, that sinner will not be condemned. 

This reminds me of another text, in Rom. xi., 26, 
27, " And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is writ- 
ten. There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, 
and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For 
this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take 
away their sins.'' Jacob, in this text, is the lot of 
the Lord's inheritance, and Israel and Jacob are 
often used interchangeably to mean the same thing. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 221 

As the Lord's portion is His people, and Jacob is 
the Jot of His inheritance, so it is often that Jacob 
is used in the Scriptures when all the Lord's people 
are intended. It is evidently so in this passage, as 
the phrase " all Israel" must mean more than one 
man, and yet the reason the aposile assigns for say- 
ing all Israel" shall be saved, is because, when the 
Deliverer comes, He will turn away ungodliness 
from Jacob. How turning ungodliness away from 
Jacob would affect the salvation of all Israel, I do 
not know, only that Jacob, in this text, and all Israel 
are the same. Believing that they are the same 
then Paul affirms a plain, comprehensive proposition 
here, that is, " And so all Israel shall be saved." 
On what evidence do you found your proposition, 
Paul ? Because it is written. What do you mean 
by saying it is written ? I mean the prophets have 
said it. What have the prophets said that makes 
you say all Israel shall be saved ? They have said 
that the Deliverer shall come out of Zion, and shall 
turn away ungodliness from Jacob. They have said 
more than that ; they say, for this is my covenant 
unto them, when I shall take away their sins, and I 
claim Paul upon the strength of all that, all Israel 
shall be saved. 

It seems then, from the apostle's reasoning, that 
he believed just as I am advocating, that Christ took 
away sins, and that God's covenant was that He 
would take away the sins of Jacob. We have already 



222 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

in this debate, referred to the text that says He put 
away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. I presume it is the 
same thing that Paul alludes to here. Upon 
this the apostle says, " all Israel shall be saved." It 
cannot be denied that this was his argument, that if 
Christ took away sin, it would result in the sinner's 
salvation. It does not sound much like Paul, now, 
to hear ministers claim that the death of Christ did 
not make the salvation of all men certain, but sim- 
ply made it possible. If Christ took away sin by 
His death, then He made salvation sure ; and if He 
did not make salvation sure, He did not take away 
sin. But the language of this text is that He will 
turn away ungodliness from Jacob. " For this is my 
covenant unto them when I shall take away their 
sins." 

I ask the attention of my brother to this text. I 
wish he would tell us wherein we are wrong. But to 
return to the subject of the intercession of Christ. 
" It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen 
again, who is even at the right hand of God, who 
also maketh intercession for us." For this rea- 
son, the apostle argues that there is none to con- 
demn. I have already shown you that the Father 
always hears the Son when He prays to Him. 

I now wish to make one or two statements that I 
ask my brother's special attention to. I do not be- 
lieve that Christ would die for a man, and then not 
pray for Him ? Do you ? Please answer that ques- 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 223 

tion. I do not believe the Son ever prays for a 
man, and is denied. Do you ? Please answer that 
also in your next speech. If He prays for all He 
died for, and yet does not pray for the entire race, 
it must necessarily follow that He did not die for all 
the race. I challenge my brother to take a position 
on this point. If He prays for all the race to be 
saved, and the Father always hears Him, then all 
the race will be saved. These are plain, reasonable 
principles that cannot be denied. If my opponent 
says He died for all the race, which he does say, then 
I ask him does He pray for* all He died for ? If 
He prays for all He died for, will the Father hear 
Him ? If the Father hears Him, will not all the 
race be saved ? 

Now, he must admit that Christ did not die for all 
the race, or else He does not pray for all He died 
for, or else the Father does not hear Him. If he 
admits that the Father hears Him, and that all that 
He died for He prays for, and that He does not 
pray for all the race, where will it land him ? If he 
admits that the Father hears Him, and that He prays 
for all He died for, and yet all the race are not 
saved, where does he land ? He must land some- 
where, and there is not a man in this country more 
anxious to see him land than I am. Come in to the 
landing, my brother, before your vessel sinks. I 
think, in all probability, that if there was ever a 
time when it would be proper to sing " Pull for the 



224 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

shore/' it would be a good time for me and my 
brother's friends to sing it to him now. He may 
come in all right. If he does I would be glad to 
see how it is done. I honestly confess I do not 
have the remotest idea how it is to be done, unless 
he leaves his craft. 

The intercession of Christ must be of great im- 
portance, from the great stress the apostles lay upon 
it. Heb. ix., 24, " For Christ has not entered into 
the holy places made with hands, which are the 
figures of the true ; but into Heaven itself, now to 
appear in the presence of God for us." 

If He appears in the presence of God for us, it is 
certainly in our interest. He is pleading for us, but 
will that be of any profit to us, if the Father does 
not hear Him ? For whom does He pray ? Shall 
we say that He only prays for the saints ? I pre- 
sume my brother will not claim that He does not 
pray for sinners. He evidently prays for sinners. 
And if He does, it is evident that He does not pray 
for all sinners, or else the Father does not hear Him. 
In order to find out who it is that He prays for, let 
us hear Him. John xvii., 9, "I pray for them ; I 
pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast 
given me ; for they are thine." We do not have to 
guess much at the truth of the Bible, if we will just 
read it, for it is very plain. 

[Time Out.] 



CHAPTER XIV. 

MR. DICKEY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 

Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

(Y\Y brother evidently likes a change once in a 
^ * "\ while ; he takes which ever side suits him best. 
When he wants to be a little different, he is on the 
other side. He says in one of his arguments that 
Christ's death made salvation secure for the elect. 
This was a positive statement, and he also says that 
the death of Jesus Christ made an atonement. Then 
he says in another one of his arguments, that the 
death of Christ never saved anybody. He got into 
a kind of a close place, and it was necessary for 
him to shove around and get out of it. One or the 
other of those statements is incorrect. I say the 
death of Christ, although not making reconciliation, 
it was a means leading to reconciliation. 

Paul, in 2 Corinthians, v., 18, says : " And all things 
are of God, who hath reconciled us unto Himself by 

15 



226 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Jesus Christ and hath given to us the ministry of 
reconciliation." I say that reconciliation was made 
by Jesus Christ, and not by His death. 

Then he inquires in regard to who is benefitted by 
the death of Christ. I am satisfied that my brother 
has commenced at the wrong end of this subject. I 
am talking of atonement and he is on redemption. 
Redemption we know should precede atonement, 
in as much'as redemption is a means by which rec- 
onciliation can be effected. Therefore, my brother 
is on the wrong end of the subject. 

He wants to know what good the death of Christ 
does if it is not an atonement. Jesus Christ does 
much towards removing the curse placed upon us ; 
He has placed man in a condition in which he may 
reach forth and partake of the tree of life. Now, is 
there no benefit, is there no advantage to be realized 
by this race in consequence of Jesus Christ rescuing 
the race from a condition in which they would be 
damned; cut off from life, and placing them in a 
condition in. which they may take of the tree of life 
and live forever ? I should say there was. My 
brother can surely see the effect in a means of re- 
demption. I can see as plain as day that there is no 
redemption or atonement made by Christ on the 
cross ; this was only the means by which it should be 
made, and not atonement. In the condition we are, 
atonement is not complete ; it will not be until every 
man is brought forth from the dead ; without this, 
atonement will never be complete. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 227 

Every man must be brought forth from the dead ; 
every man must become rid of his wickedness, which 
he is not, in this world. We are never to be rid of 
sin in this world ; it is not because we do not believe 
on Jesus ; it is not because Jesus Christ did not die 
for us, but we must realize that we are lost because 
of our misconduct and crimes we have committed. 

In one of his passages in Isaiah, that he referred 
to, we find the very same " many" that Paul refers 
to in the fifth chapter of Romans : " Even so by the 
righteousness of one, many were made righteous." 
The " many" in Isaiah refers to the " many" Adam 
made sinners. If Jesus Christ only brought part of 
the race back to righteousness, those that were left 
out did not need to be redeemed. They were not 
sinners, therefore they did not need to be redeemed 
by Christ. The very same " many" included in the 
condemnation of Adam, was to be redeemed by 
Jesus Christ. 

Now, I wish to proceed with my argument, atone- 
ment. You remember in my last speech that I was 
speaking in regard to the atonement that was made 
for Israel here on earth with Aaron as High Priest, 
and that I said that the atonement was not made by 
the slaying of the lamb outside of the tabernacle. 

Now, I wish to say that God has a better covenant, 
that which we are now living under ; a better cove, 
mant than that which they had in the days in which 
Aaron was High Priest, or minister of the earthly 



228 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

tabernacle. God in His divine mercy sent Jesus 
Christ to be our great High Priest. He is our great 
High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle, by the oath 
of God. Hebrews, vii., 21 to 23, " For those priests 
were made without an oath, but this with an oath by 
Him that said unto Him, the Lord sware and will" 
not repent, thou art a priest forever after the order 
of Melchisedec : By so much was Jesus made a 
surety of a better Testament." Being a priest it 
was necessary that He make an offering. He was 
made the offering. He was made a priest by the 
oath of God ; not like priests here on earth. God 
sent His own Son to be High Priest, and to make 
an offering. This offering He made when He offer- 
ed up Himself. Christ offered up Himself and not 
the lamb. Aaron, the earthly priest, offered up the 
lamb, by which atonement was to be made, by the 
shedding of its blood. As yon remember the atone- 
ment was not to be made by the body of the lamb, 
that is by its death, even so the body of Jesus Christ 
did not make an atonement ; it was the blood of 
Jesus Christ that made an atonement. Now, if when 
the lamb was slain, its body did not make an atone- 
ment, the body of Jesus Christ did not make an 
atonement ; if the blood of the lamb made an atone- 
ment, then the blood of Jesus Christ makes atone- 
ment. My brother has never said anything in 
regard to atonement being made by the blood of 
Christ. He cannot deny that it was. It is taught 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 229 

too plainly in the Scriptures. Christ's blood makes 
atonement. 

You remember Aaron was selected from the tribe 
of Levi, and Jesus Christ was from the tribe of Ju- 
dah. The priests of the tribe of Levi never had a 
right to enter into the holy place at all times, nor to 
select the animal by which the atonement was to be 
made. But Jesus Christ is minister under a better 
covenant than that under which Aaron was minister, 
but the atonements which Aaron made here on earth 
were a type of the atonement Jesus is to make. 
Therefore, in regard to where Jesus Christ did make 
an atonement, He made it after His ascension to 
glory ; after He entered into the holy place. Then 
He never made it on the cross, for there is no ac- 
count of His making the atonement there. 

Another thought : No one but the priest had any 
right to make a sacrifice. At the time of the Tem- 
ple of Solomon at Jerusalem, Jesus Christ was not a 
priest, to make sacrifices or atonement for the sins 
of Israel, for the elect, or for anybody else.. He had 
no more right to go there and act as priest than any 
other man of Israel. You remember, under the old 
dispensation, every priest had to be of the tribe of 
Levi. Jesus Christ was of the tribe of Judah, and 
therefore He could not have been a priest on earth. 
But Christ was to be priest in the heavenly taber- 
nacle ; a better ministry than that which Aaron held. 
Jesus Christ, as the great High Priest of our salva- 



230 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

tion, has entered into the heavenly tabernacle, there 
to make atonement or to make reconciliation for the 
sin of His people. He was made a priest by the 
oath of God, not to minister in the earthly taber- 
nacle, but to minister in a greater one not made with 
hands, but in Heaven. It was not made with hands, 
this great heavenly tabernacle in which Jesus was to 
minister. So you see Jesus Christ did not make an 
atonement on earth. This atonement, which we are 
all interested in — the atonement on which our whole 
salvation depends — was not made on earth, as the 
one Moses directed to be made in the earthly taber- 
nacle, but it is made in heaven, in the presence of 
God Himself, in the holy of holies. Now, if this be 
true, and I have proved it by the Scriptures, then 
my brother's position falls to the ground. He does 
not find any atonement at all, made on earth, much 
less a complete atonement or reconciliation. But 
Jesus Christ has obtained the heavenly ministry, and 
is a mediator of a better covenant, and which con- 
tained better promises. What was the promise 
under the Mosaic dispensation ? The promise of 
this covenant was temporary blessings. What was 
the promise in the better cevenant ? Eternal life ; a 
home in Heaven. This certainly is a far better, 
more glorious promise ; that we may obtain eternal 
life with Jesus as our priest. He was not made a 
priest to minister on earth, according to the earthly 
atonements. He could not have made an atonement 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 231 

here on earth without being an earthly priest. Here 
is a declaration of the Apostle Paul, who seems to 
know what he is talking about : " For if He were on 
earth, He should not" be a priest, seeing that there 
are priests that offer gifts according to the law." 
Heb. viii., 4. 

Thus He was not holding any priestly office here 
on earth ; therefore, He had no right to make an 
atonement. It was not His place. 

Every twelve months, on the tenth day of the 
month, I believe, the earthly priests made an atone- 
ment for the sins of the people. Jesus Christ never 
went there. He would not have been permitted ; 
He had no right to enter in there to make an atone- 
ment. No one had a right to go there but the 
priests. They were the only ones allowed to enter 
into the tabernacle and they, themselves, had to be 
justified according to the directions of God. 

Moses was directed, in the first place, to anoint 
Aaron, and the tabernacle was to be purified. Every 
direction had to be carried out. God would not 
have answered if they had not been. 

This tabernacle or temple was of earth and had to 
be purified by the sprinkling of blood in the holy of 
holies, and before the mercy seat. This purification 
was made by the sprinkling and pouring of blood ; 
this was the atonement. Jesus Christ did not enter 
into the holy of holies, or the holy place made with 



'232 DEBATE EEMENT. 

hands, but in H vhere He is now appearing 

in the presence of God for us. 

Hebrews ix., 24 : " For Chris: is no: entered into 
the holy places made with hands, which are the 
figures of the true, but into Heaven itself, now to ap- 
pear in the presence of God for us." 

Chris: did no: enter intc the holy places of earth, 
or the earthly Jerusalem ; but He is now in Heaven, 
making reconciliation for us. Paul said that the 
holy places on earth are the figures of the true, 
which are in Heaven. This is plain in the minds of 
all who are giving attention, but He is in heaven 
now to appear in the presence of God for us. This 
would not be necessary if He had made a complete 
atonement on earth. 

But as the atonement is not made without His 
resurrection and His ascension, I ask you in the 
name of common sense teachings of the Scriptures, 
if He made an atonement here on earth, did He not 
make two ? If there are two, my brother has one 
more than he has any use for. Christ certainly 
made but one atoneme: 

Hebrews ix.,12 : " Neither by the blood of goats and 
calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into 
the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for 
us/' Aaron, you know, when he was on earth, killed a 
lamb at the door of the tabernacle, and the children 
of Israel gathered around the lamb and laid their 
hands on the head of the lamb. That lamb was 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 233 

bearing the sins of the people, and if, as my brother 
says, Jesus Christ made an atonement by His suffer- 
ing, why, there is as much reason that He made it 
in the Garden of Gethsemane, where His suffering 
was so great that His sweat became, as it were, great 
drops of blood. Certainly that was Christ bearing 
the sins of the world. His suffering then was per- 
haps more acute, more intense than when He died 
on the cross, for after He was nailed on the cross 
there was no complaint. If it had been made by 
suffering, it might been made then in the Garden of 
Gethsemane. 

But it was not made by sufferings ; it was not to 
be made at the time the life of the animal was taken 
in the atonements made on earth and according to the 
specified directions of Heaven. Neither when Christ 
died on the cross was atonement made, for it is going 
to be made in Heaven. He came to do it, and He 
is going to do it; but if He made it on the cross, 
the figure teaches something that is not true, and 
we cannot conclude that God would have given us a 
figure of the atonement if by it we do not understand 
it So by the figure, it was necessary to have some 
kind of an offering made. " Neither by the blood 
of goats or calves, but by His own blood, He en- 
tered in once into the holy place, having obtained 
eternal redemption for us." 

Thus it was not by the blood of a lamb ; it was by 
the blood of Jesus Christ that He entered into 



234 DEBATE ON ATQNEMENT. 

heaven. He has taken His own blood to make an 
atonement for His people. 

"For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes 
of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifleth to the 
purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the 
blood of Christ, who, through the eternal spirit, 
offered Himself without spot to God, purge your 
conscience from dead works to serve the living 
God ? " 

Hence, we find that Jesus Christ did everything 
that was necessary to prepare Him to make atone- 
ment. . If He had not come and done this, there 
would have been no Savior. Without Him in the 
great scheme of salvation, no one could have been 
saved ; not one individual ; if one of the parts He 
performed had been left out, it would not have been 
complete. At the time He died on the cross there 
was no atonement made ; but by His dying on the 
cross, the shedding of His blood, He entered into 
Heaven according to the directions of God, to stand 
there in the presence of the Majesty on high ; He 
becomes there a living priest, there to offer by His 
blood the means by which reconciliation can be 
made for the sins of the people. He is entered into 
the holy sanctuary — into the holy place, in the pres- 
ence of God to make atonement for them that believe 
on Him. 

With this proof, I say my brother's position is in- 
correct, his whole doctrine is wrong, and he cannot 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 235 

get out of it. If he should agree with the Apostle 
Paul, he will agree with me. It is all wrong, accord- 
ing to the Apostle Paul, for he says that Jesus went 
to Heaven for the purpose of completing the great 
work which God had designed ; when he ascended 
to Heaven, He was to make atonement according to 
the law. When He was on earth He never entered 
into the work as High Priest, but He is made priest 
by the oath of God, to stand in Heaven and perform 
the services of a High Priest in the holy of holies — 
into the tabernacle not made with hands, and it is 
there He is to make atonement for the sins of His 
people. " Wherefore, in all things, it behooved Him 
to be made like unto His brethren that He might be 
a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertain- 
ing to God, to make reconciliation." 

This, my friends, is to be after He has entered 
into the holy of holies, and standeth in the presence 
of Almighty God ; there is where He is to make rec- 
onciliation, for the Apostle Paul said "to make" rec- 
onciliation, "Wherefore, in all things, it behooved 
Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He 
might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things 
pertaining to God, to make reconciliation. " If rec- 
onciliation was already made — if it had been made on 
the tree of the cross — I ask why He is going to make 
it again, unless we have more than one atonement. 

I think my brother has gotten himself into a posi- 
tion which I am satisfied he cannot evade with all 



236 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

the dodging it is possible for him to do. He cannot 
avoid the plain considerations I have given upon 
this important subject. He may be a fine talker, but 
he is not able to call your attention to every point 
in this doctrine and prove his position. He cannot 
say the atonement was made on the tree of the cross, 
if it is to be made in Heaven in the presence of God, 
unless there are two atonements, and therefore I 
say his position is incorrect. He says Jesus Christ 
made an atonement on the cross, that He made a 
"complete" atonement, but he cannot find in the 
Scriptures a complete atonement made by Christ. I 
told him I defied him to find " complete'' used in 
that connection. I told him I would urge it on him 
speech after speech until he found it. He has fail- 
ed, and he will continue to fail ; if he had a month to 
go on he would still fail. I am satisfied he cannot 
convince you that he is right. 

There could be no atonement made for us on the 
tree of the cross; my friends, we had no existence at 
that time. The offering was made then, but after 
the death, and sufferings of Christ in death, He rose 
in the spiritual body and ascended on high, and it 
was there the atonement was made. We see this 
from the inspired apostle, that the reconciliation was 
made by His blood, when He stands in the presence 
of God in the holy of holies. It is there He makes 
reconciliation for His people, being made an offer- 
ing for sin. In 1 Corinthians, v., 20, we have an 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 237 

idea expressed : u Now then we are embassadors 
for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us ; 
we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to 
God." 

Now, my friends, if my brother was right, why 
was it that the Apostle Paul was praying to God 
that individuals might be reconciled ? According to 
my brother they were already reconciled ; no need of 
any prayer ; they were already reconciled. But the 
Apostle Paul says : " Now, then, we are embassadors 
for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us ; 
we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to 
God." If this is so, they needed prayer, and my 
brother is mistaken about it. The great Apostle 
Paul was praying for men to be reconciled to God, 
but according to a great man, my brother, Elder 
Potter, reconciliation was already accomplished; and 
Paul was praying for something he had no right to 
pray for, something that it was unnecessary to pray 
for, because they were already reconciled to God. 
Hebrews, v., 6, " As He saith also in another place, 
thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchise- 
dec." If His work was complete after when He died, 
why is it necessary that He is to be continually a 
priest ? He is now a great High Priest, unchang- 
ing, " Wherefore, He is able to save them to the 
uttermost that come to God, by Him, seeing He 
ever liveth to make intercessions for them." 



238 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

This is the kind of a Savior, my friends, that I de 
sire to present to mankind — one who stands to make 
intercession for us who are bearing the troubles and 
difficulties of this life, in consequence of the trans- 
gression of our first parents. I say this is the kind 
of a Savior I wish to serve ; a living risen Savior, not 
a dead Savior that died on the cross, but did not 
rise. What are the benefits of a dead Savior ? No, 
my friends, it is a living Savior that I desire to pre- 
sent to the children of men, to persuade men to 
come to God by Him. I am glad of the expression 
of the Apostle Paul, that He is able to save all men, 
and if Paul is right, my brother is wrong. Jesus 
Christ could not save a man that He did not die for ; 
He could not save a man for whom there was no 
reconciliation made. He could not possibly save 
any one for whom there was no reconciliation made, 
but He is now in God's presence making reconcilia- 
tion. So you see the Elder is mistaken in regard to 
the position of atonement being made on the cross. 
" Wherefore, He is able to save them to the utter- 
most that come to God through Him," — it makes 
no difference how great a sinner they are. The 
Apostle Paul says He is able, and therefore He is a 
Savior able to save all. 

[Time Out.] 



CHAPTER XV. 



MR. POTTER S EIGHTH SPEECH. 

Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I AM before you now for the last time during this 
discussion. As my friend seems so utterly dis- 
posed to talk about the first part of the proposition 
to-day, of course there will be one text of Scripture 
fulfilled ; that is, " The first shall be last, and the 
last shall be first." 

I want to show you something. In the tenth 
chapter of Hebrews, where we have the suffering of 
Christ and the suffering of these offerings on Jew- 
ish altars, referred to, I wish to notice them. Be- 
ginning with the seventh verse, the Apostle says : 
" Then, said I, lo ! I come (in the volume of the 
book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God. 
Above, when He said, sacrifice and offering and 
burnt offerings, and offering for sin thou wouldst 
not, neither hadst pleasure therein ; which are offer- 



240 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

ed by the law. Then said He, lo ! I come to do thy 
will, O God. He taketh away the first that He 
might establish the second. By the which will we 
are sanctified through" — what ? — "through the offer- 
ing." Now notice that — we want everybody to no- 
tice that this is a reply to his two speeches — 
"through the offering of the body of "[esus Christ, 
once for all." 

Through what are we sanctified ? Through the 
offering. Where was the offering made ? On the 
cross — the offering through which we are sancti- 
fied. The offering of the body of Christ once for all. 

" And every priest standeth daily ministering and 
offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can 
never take away sin." Now notice the blood of the 
sacrifices never can take away sins. It is the sacri- 
fice the apostle speaks of as taking away sin, and 
not the blood. 

" But this man, after He had offered one sacrifice 
for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God. 
From henceforth expecting till His enemies be made 
His footstool. For, by one offering, He hath per- 
fected forever them that are sanctified." " Forever," 
that is a little like complete, Brother Dickey ; "per- 
fected them forever that are sanctified." I said in 
my definition of complete, that complete meant per- 
fect, full, or whole. There it is. How did He 
perfect forever them that are sanctified ? By the 
offering of His body, you remember; and by this 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 241 

offering He perfected forever them that are sancti- 
fied. Who are sanctified ? Those for whom His 
body was offered are those who are sanctified. 

I make two points on this text : one is that all for 
whom this offering was made, are sanctified and will 
be saved. Not one of them will ever be lost, that 
Jesus Christ has by this one offering forever per- 
fected. You missionaries say that Jesus Christ, by 
the offering of His body, forever perfected them, 
yet they will go to hell if they are not disposed to 
accept it. I would like to be excused from believ- 
ing that. 

Now, he says these sacrifices could not take away 
sin. The Apostle mentions the sacrifice of Jesus 
Christ, which did take away sin. In connection 
with that, I wish to define atonement. Atonement 
means expiation of guilt. Now, if guilt is expiated, 
it is taken away. The apostle said : " He appeared 
once in the end of the world to put away sin by the 
sacrifice of Himself." He put it away. This text 
has never been noticed. That is all I wish to say. 
Remember the Apostle says — "by this one offering" 
— by the offering — He hath perfected forever them 
that are sanctified." Having obtained eternal re- 
demption for us, He entered into Heaven for His 
people, Brother Dickey. 

After He obtained it, He entered into Heaven. 
Where did > He obtain it ? I say on the cross. I 

16 



242 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

have completely answered that, if he considers those 
sacrifices a type of the coming of Christ. I wish 
now to close my arguments and recapitulate some 
things that have taken place. I was talking about 
the intercession of Christ. You remember I made 
this point in my last speech. I argued that Christ 
would not die for a man and then refuse to pray for 
him. I argued that if He did pray for a man, the 
Father always heard Him. If He prays for all the 
race, the Father must hear Him when He prays for 
all the race, and all the race will be saved. If He 
prays for all men, all men must be saved, or else the 
Father does not hear Him when He prays. We 
have heard no reply to that. That stands and I pre- 
sume it will. He does not pray for the world. He 
says plainly himself that He does not. Did He die 
for the world, then refuse to pray for the world ? 
What could have been His purpose in dying for the 
world and then refusing to pray for it ? 

He does not pray for the world. Did He die for 
the world and then refuse to pray for the world ? What 
could have been His purpose in dying for the world 
and then refusing to pray for it ? For whom does 
He pray ? For those that the Father hath given 
Him. We have seen before that "All that the 
Father giveth Him shall come to Him." He prays 
for them. He came into the world for their benefit, 
and they do not include the entire race, or He would 
pray for them. He says He prays for them that the 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 243 

Father gave Him, but he says He prays not for the 
world. Then the Father did not give Him the 
world. Verse 20 of the same chapter : " Neither 
pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall 
believe on me through their word." From this it seems 
that His prayer is limited — not to the Apostles, but 
to them also which shall believe on Him through 
their word. 

His prayer embraces all that will ever believe, 
and I claim that all that He prays for will believe, 
and yet He does not pray for the world, for He says : 
" I pray not for the world. " I can hardly think that 
any man will be so unreasonable as to claim that 
Christ died for the world, and then refused to pray 
for it afterwards. 

But what does He pray for? Verse 21 : " That 
they may all be one \ as Thou, Father, art in me, 
and I in thee, that they may also be one in us \ that 
the world may believe that Thou hast sent me." 
This is His prayer and we cannot be mistaken. He 
does not only pray for those that are believers, but 
He prays for those that shall be, but not for the 
world. 

But I am persuaded that when those He prays for 
are one with Christ and the Father, then the world 
will believe that God sent His Son into the world. 
His prayer is certain to be answered, and what He 
prays for will come to pass, if the Father hears Him. 
Then it follows that those that the Father gave Him 
will ultimately be one with the Father and the Son. 



244 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Now. I would love ro know, if He died for all the 
race, how it comes that He only prays for some of 
them ? In these arguments Ihave sustained that 
part of my proposition that He atoned for the elect 
exclusively. If I have not, I ask to know why not. 

Christ is our priest, and He is not a High Priest 
that cannot be touched with the feeling of our in- 
firmities. We will read Heb. ix.. 11. 12 : ; " Bur 
Christ being come a High Priest of good things to 
come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not 
made with hands, that is to say not of this building; 
neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His 
own blood He entered in once into the holy place, 
having obtained eternal redemption for us." 

He entered the priesthood upon the merits of His 
own blood, and that is His pie a for all His children. 
If He made a sacrifice sufficient to take away sins, 
and, on that account is received into Heaven, and 
into the priestly office, for the reason that He has 
obtained eternal redemption for us. His intercession 
must be so effectual that whatever He asks in be- 
half of the people will be granted. Let us never 
represent our Savior as having died for the sinner, 
and then ascending to Heaven, and leaving the 
great matter of our salvation with us, who are too 
sinful to know enough about ourselves to know our 
need of salvation, until we are quickened into di- 
vine life by the effectual operation of the Spirit of 
God; and then, even after we have tasted the Lord 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 245 

is gracious, we are so ignorant that we do not know 
what to pray for as we ought. Let us not think, as 
some intimate, that Jesus has forgotten a sin-ruined 
world — that He has forgotten the worth of His own 
shed blood — that He has forgotten the office to 
which He has been admitted with that blood, and 
the work He did before He could fill the priestly- 
office — that is, that He had obtained eternal re- 
demption for us. Let us remember that He is as 
much concerned for the welfare of His people to- 
day as He was when He was here in the world. 
And' that He honors every promise He ever made, 
and that it is just as true to-day as it ever then was 
that His sheep shall never perish. Paul says : " We 
know not what to pray for as we ought, but the 
Spirit maketh intercession for us with groanings that 
cannot be uttered.'' O ! this glorious intercession ! 
How much I need it ! How abundantly and freely 
it is made for all the children of God ! Will the 
people for whom Jesus has obtained eternal redemp- 
tion ever sink down to eternal perdition ? Will He 
pray for them?. What is His priesthood worth to 
us if, when He has obtained eternal redemption for 
us, and entered into Heaven with that redemption, 
ratified by all the hosts of Heaven, and for which 
He shed His own blood, His intercession will avail 
nothing? His eyes are ever over the righteous, and 
His ears are open to their prayers, but if the Father 
does not hear Him, what consolation shall we have 
in it all ? 



246 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

But the Father does hear Him. This is not de- 
nied, and should not be denied by any New Testa- 
ment believer. Then if the Father does hear Him, 
what will be the result ? He will certainly intercede for 
those for whom He has obtained eternal redemption, 
If He does they will be saved. But all the race are 
not saved. Then He does not intercede for them, 
as He said : " I pray not for the world. " Then He 
did not obtain eternal redemption for them. 

So He must have made an atonement on the cross 
for the elect, exclusively. This is my position, and 
I think I have abundantly, and successfully sustain- 
ed it. I do not expect the arguments I have made 
to be answered, and if they ever should be, then I 
leave these positions and preach something else. I 
am on the unpopular side, in my views, and I am 
not here simply because I love to be unpopular, for 
I desire popularity as much as any man, but I am 
here for want of an answer to the arguments I have 
introduced here, in favor of a definite atonement. 
That is the reason I am here, and I want to tell you 
my positions are correct I think, and I would rather 
be alone, and have the truth, than be wrong and 
have the approbation of all the men of the world. 

I now wish to notice a few texts to show you that 
some of the race of men will be lost. I believe that, 
as there is a place of happiness for all the redeemed, 
and that they will certainly and absolutely be 
brought into the full enjoyment of it, I also believe 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 247 

there is a place of punishment for the wicked and 
finally impenitent. In describing the holy Jerusalem, 
the inspired man of God, to-wit, John, when on the 
Isle of Patmos, in exile, says, Rev. xxi., 25, 26, 27, 
" And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day ; 
for there shall be no night there. And they shall 
bring the glory and honor of the nations into it. And 
there shall in no wise enter into it anything 
that defileth, neither watsoever worketh abomination, 
or maketh a lie ; but they which are written in the 
Lamb's book of life. " 

I have, in another speech, observed that the elect 
people of God were written in His book before they 
existed, and now, at the close of revelation, the 
Holy Spirit says none shall enter into this Heavenly 
city, but which are written in the book of life. It 
certainly must be for them exclusively. Rev. xx., 12, 
15, " And I saw the dead, small and great, stand 
before God ; and the books were opened, and an- 
other book was opened, which was the book of life ; 
and the dead were judged out of those things which 
were written in the books, according to their works. 
And the sea gave up the dead that was in it ; and 
death and hell delivered up the dead which were in 
them ; and they were judged, every man, accord- 
ing to their works. And death and hell were cast 
into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And 
whosoever was not found written in the book of life 
was cast into the lake of fire." 



248 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

I have never yet seen an intimation that any 
would be saved, only those whom God previously in- 
tended to save. They were written in the book of 
life. Without introducing a great multitude of texts, 
I will give one that tells us when this writing was 
done, and pass on. Rev. xvii., 8, " The beast that 
thou sawest, was, and is not, and shall ascend out of 
the bottomless pit, and go into perdition ; and they 
that dwell on the earth shall wonder (whose names 
were not written in the book of life from the founda- 
tion of the world,) when they behold the beast that 
was, and is not, and yet is." This text positively 
speaks as though the names were written in the 
book from the foundation of the world. Now, an- 
other text that I quoted did not allow any to enter 
Heaven, but they whose names were written in the 
book of life. 

Jesus, in giving an account of the last day, says 
He will say to those on the right, come ye, blest of 
my Father, and inherit the kingdom prepared for 
you from the foundation of the world. They are 
evidently the same people, the covenant children of 
God — the elect of God. 

Now, I ask my brother to tell us if he thinks any 
will ever enjoy that kingdom but those for whom it 
was prepared from the foundation of the world ? 
Will not every one of them finally enjoy it? I 
would love an answer to that question. I ask then, 
if the kingdom was prepared for the people from the 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 249 

foundation of the world, and they all get into it, ac- 
cording to that arrangement, did Christ atone for 
those that the kingdom was not prepared for? If 
He did, what was His object ? He did not predes- 
tinate that they should enjoy the saving benefits of 
His blood, why did He shed it for them ? It did 
them no good if He did, for it made them no happier 
than they would have been without it, and it surely 
was not shed for them for the purpose of rendering 
them more miserable. If that was it there could be 
no atonement in that. 

I am aware of the fact that many view the death of 
Christ as having made ample provision for the sal- 
vation of all the race, and then offering the benefits 
of that provision to the sinner, on the condition that 
he accepts Christ. But we are here to talk about 
atonement, and not about a provision being made. 
I deny any such provision, and I stand here to say 
there is no such thing mentioned in the Bible. 

I now quote Matt, xxiv., 30, 31, " And then shall 
appear the sign of the Son of man in Heaven ; and 
then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they 
shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of 
Heaven with power and great glory. And He shall 

send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, 
and they shall gather together His elect from the 
four winds, from one end of Heaven to the other.'' 
Here we have it that He is coming for the elect. 
He claims them, aud they are among all the kin- 
dred of the earth. 



250 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

I have now given you about all the arguments I 
intend to introduce, and I claim that I have proved 
my proposition beyond a doubt. 

I now wish to call attention to some of the argu- 
ments made during this discussion. Yesterday 
morning, in the definition of the terms of my propo- 
sition there was not a single objection presented to 
them, and has not been from then till now. I de- 
fined the terms of the proposition, and there has not 
been any other definitions given. I have defined 
the word atonement, during this discussion, as mean- 
ing satisfaction rendered for an offense or an injury 
done. If there has not been satisfaction made for 
sin, or for an offense, it has not been atoned for. I 
have argued during this discussion that Jesus Christ 
made that satisfaction for sin, for He took it away. 
He put sin away by the sacrifice of Himself. I have 
called my brother's attention to this almost every 
speech during this discussion — he has never yet 
opened his mouth on it. I wonder why. / wonder 
why. It was the sacrifice that was offered on the 
cross that put away sin — that made satisfaction for 
sin — that atoned for it or put it out of the way. 

He has not said that it is not true. His position 
denies it. I do not blame him for not noticing it. 
It comes too squarely against his position. Now, 
we cannot be mistaken that He appeared once in 
the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice 
of Himself. Did not come to put it away by any- 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 251 

thing else but by the sacrifice. That sacrifice was 
Himself. I based an argument upon that. I want 
you to remember that. Now there has been no ob- 
jection presented to that, and if there is no objection 
presented to it, then my position must be correct — 
that on the cross sin was put away. 

That is my position : that the atonement was made 
on the cross. My argument is not new to this audi- 
ence. He said yesterday morning that Christ did 
make an atonement, but did not make it on the cross. 
I wanted to know of him when He made it ; he has 
not told us. I am left in the dark. Some of us will 
go home just as dark as when we left home. I am 
satisfied that Brother Dickey cannot inform me, or 
else he does not want to. 

There are some who always debate on a credit. If 
you remember he was going to tell us to. day. I 
have met men before now that were always going to 
do something terrible after while. Perhaps he will 
tell you about it. 

If Christ did not make an atonement on the cross, 
and yet did make it, He must have made it before 
or since. He said emphatically that Christ did make 
an atonement. 

Another thought : He has charged me all the time 
of basing the whole salvation of sinners on one special 
act of Christ, which I have repeatedly denied. I be- 
lieve this audience understands that from the very 
fact I have told him so often. He does not want 
you to understand my position. 



'252 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

He has convinced me by his repetition of that 
charge that he would rather you would not under- 
stand my position. I never said that the death of 
Christ exclusive of everything else saved sinners. 
Never have said it. But I did say that the death of 
Christ did secure salvation for the sinner, but not that 
it embraced everything necessary to the salvation of 
the sinner. He has been talking about means, as 
though he expected I would fight him. The death 
of Christ secured everything necessary to the salva- 
tion of sinners. So that by that death, salvation 
was placed or made secure for the sinner. That is 
what I argue. The death of Christ is necessary, the 
intercession of Christ is necessary, the operation of 
the Spirit is necessary, mediation is necessary. 
Everything that He does is necessary to the conver- 
sion and salvation of the sinner. I will refer you to a 
text on which I based that argument, Romans viii., 32* 
I would love for him to pay some attention to it : " He 
that spareth not His own Son, but delivered Him up 
for us all, how shall He not with him freely give us all 
things ?" " How shall He not freely give us all things ?'' 

Would God deliver up His only Son to die the 
agonizing death of the cross, to be put to shame, to 
be despised for the sinner, and then deny anything 
else necessary for his salvation ? That is teaching 
in opposition to the Bible. I charge it on my 
brother, and I do not charge it on him alone, because 
there are so many people guilty — I charge it on all 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 253 

you who preach that the death of Christ simply 
makes a possible salvation for sinners, you do not 
believe in atonement at all. You object to us be 
cause we preach a limited atonement. That is better 
than you preach — you preach no atonement at all. 

Atonement makes salvation certain. You preach 
that it is made possible. He rather chided me for 
referring to our Methodist brethren. He forgot that 
I referred to him too. In the Baptist Banner of 
August 18th, the editor of that paper says : ;t The 
death of Christ did not make the salvation of all 
men certain, but simply made it possible." This 
was a Missionary Baptist writer, notice that, editor of 
the Baptist Banner, (a Missionary paper,) August 
18th, 1886. That is their doctrine. That all who 
believe are atoned for. That the death of Christ did 
not make salvation certain ; there is no atonement in 
that. 

It is evident that Brother Dickey believes in no 
atonement at all. I will tell you what he said yes- 
terday. He said that sin had to be punished, that 
was the penalty of the law, and if Christ paid the 
debt, He must be sent to hell ; that if He paid the 
debt He would have had to suffer in hell. He asked 
if Jesus Christ could have paid the debt some other 
way. He asked that question, if sin sends sinners to 
hell. I argued that it would, and he comes up and 
says : " Can Jesus Christ pay it any other way ?" 



254 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Now, then, the definition of atonement is satisfac- 
tion. When I said that Jesus Christ made atone- 
ment, I referred to the Methodist Confession of 
faith to help me out in the definition of that word. 
That is all. They say, " The sacrifice of Christ once 
offered is that perfect redemption, propitiation and 
satisfaction for sin" — that is what atonement is. 



[Time Out.] 



CHAPTER XVI. 



MR. DICKEY'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 

Brethren, Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
*7f\ E are not here to decide this question by what 
\X) the Methodist discipline says. It is by the 
word of God we are to try this question. One thing 
struck me a little amusing during this discussion. A 
long time ago I attended a debate. It was when I 
was young. But at that debate we had an Irishman, 
who came in about half drunk. Of course this was 
not the place to make sport, but one of the debaters 
thought he could better present his arguments if 
they^were written, so he wrote his speeches down on 
a long strip or paper that would reach from ceiling 
to floor. He commenced unrolling and reading, and 
the paDer reached the floor. The Irishman noticed 
and got tired of his reading. - Well," said he, 
"Spake it! Spake it! Faith and be jabers, any 
mon could rade it." I could have read Brother 
Potter's speeches, if I had them, just as well as he 
could. 



256 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Mr. Potter : It is a pity you did not have them. 

Mr. Dickey : I think I got along very well without 
them. 

Now, in regard to his denying the position he 
takes in regard to the atonement being made on the 
tree of the cross, in this last speech he said it was 
to be offered in the presence of the Being in Heaven. 
You all remember he has been contending that it 
was made by shedding the blood of Jesus Christ. 
Now he says it was offered to the Father in Heaven. 
This may do for him, but it will not do for me. 

Then he brings up the unpopular side. That 
does not prove that he is right, because he happens 
to be on the unpopular side. Some of the Mormons 
— I am not saying this with any disrespect to them — 
might as well try to prove that they are right by say- 
ing they are on the unpopular side. They might 
have as much, or more reason to say they are right, 
because they have a large majority as to say they 
are on the unpopular side. The Mormons being on 
the unpopular side is no reason they are right. That 
is no reason at all. 

Then he is talking about the names being written 
in the Lamb's book of life ; that away back, I do not 
know how long ago, but perhar>s before the earth 
was created, that God decided He would keep a 
book of life. Now, every man that has lived on the 
face of the earth has had his name written in this 
book. Therefore he has had his name in the book 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 257 

of life ; so this argument that has been presented by 
my brother is not worth very much. We have all 
lived, consequently we have all had our names 
written in the book of life. He is trying to shove 
around and get out of his own statement. 

I supposed his first speech would be consumed in 
regard to the word reconciliation, which he did. 
Now he is beginning to want out of it. I told him I 
accepted his definition of the word, but now he 
would like another ; this does not fit his cause. 
There are other meanings to the word, but we have 
let it stand that it means atonement. Well, then, in 
regard to the sacrifice. He says I have not said any- 
ing about it. You may judge about that. I have 
contended that Jesus Christ did make a sacrifice, 
but did not make an atonement ; that it is by His 
blood that atonement is to be made. He wants me 
to deny that the sacrifice makes an atonement. I 
have denied it. I have said it was not so. He 
wants to claim I have said nothing at all about it. If 
it is so, why doesn't he prove it ? ' ; Neither by the 
blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He 
entered in once into the holy place, having obtained 
eternal redemption for us." It was not by His flesh 
— you know He came in the flesh — but it is by His 
blood He is to reconcile us. " Neither by the blood 
of goats and calves, but by His own blood/' Surely 
this is plain ; it was by His own blood. " For if the 

17 



258 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, 
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying 
of the flesh.' : 

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who 
through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without 
spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works 
to serve the living God ?" Surely then this recon- 
ciliation was made by the blood and not by the sac- 
rifice. 

Well, he said I was not going to tell you about 
when the atonement was made. Maybe I won't, 
but I believe he is fooled ; I think he is a little mis- 
taken in regard to it. I think it is possible that I 
may tell something about. I claim, as I claimed be- 
fore, that redemption is not complete. I am satisfied 
that every person that gives good attention under- 
stands that that is what I claimed. 

Redemption is not complete, because we are not 
redeemed from death. The sin of the people remains 
with them. But the work is begun ; we all stand in 
reach of life, and Jesus will save them to the utter- 
most that come to Him. 

That is what I believe in regard to the atonement 
made by Jesus Christ ; that He entered Heaven as a 
great High Priest, where He is now making inter- 
cession for those that believe on Him, When man 
has conquered death and sin, his redemption is 
complete, but not till then. This will never be in 
this life, although if we repent and believe on Jesus, 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 259 

we will be saved. The Apostle Paul says : " With 
my mind I serve the law of God, but with flesh the 
law of sin." 

Even Paul was not relieved from sin. My broth- 
er says that the atonement was complete on the 
cross, but I claim that He is now in the holy place 
in the presence of God, making atonement. His 
death, His resurrection and sufferings were steps 
towards making reconciliation ; but I claim that 
complete atonement will not be paid on earth, from 
the fact that Paul, an inspired Apostle, was not 
wholly reconciled, although he served the law of God 
with his mind. Our flesh must also be reconciled 
before atonement can be completely effected. 

It never will be complete until the body as well as 
the soul has become reconciled to God. Therefore, 
as I told you, there are three things to be done for 
man before he is redeemed from under the law. 
Enmity must be removed ; he has to be redeemed 
from death ; sin has to be removed. Man must be- 
come reconciled in the flesh before he can become 
reconciled to God When will this be ? When we 
are going to have a great day of atonement, then it 
will be. But he says I am not going to say any- 
thing about the sacrifice. We will see whether I 
do or whether I don't. You remember that there was 
a sacrifice or an offering called an atonement, made 
on a great special day once every twelve months. 
Who was that atonement made for ? Those that 



260 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

were living. It was not made for those that live 
here now, but for the Jews and Gentiles that were 
then living. 

Now, if this was a type of the great atonement 
made by Jesus, He must enter into the holy place 
and make atonement by His blood, and it must be 
made, too, on a great day, the great day on which 
reconciliation is going to be made. I intended to 
reply to him yesterday, when he brought up that 
text : " Seventy weeks are determined upon thee 
and thy city to finish transgression, to make an end 
of sin." I appeal to the audience to know if there 
has an end to transgression been made. No, sir. 
Has an end of sin been made ? No, sir. Is it going 
to be made while we are living here upon earth ? 
Are our bodies ever going to be made free from sin 
while we live on earth ? No, sir. Is the time ever 
to come when transgression is to be made an end of ? 
Yes, sir, the time is coming when this is to be done. 
When is it going to be ? When our bodies shall 
pass from corruption to incorruption ; when Christ 
shall bring us forth from the dead victors over 
death. Yes, He will come and raise those that are 
redeemed by His blood ; every one, and shall give 
them spiritual bodies, instead of these earthly, sin- 
ful, corruptible bodies, that we pass through this life 
in. Perfect reconciliation will then be made, when 
we are free from^sin, for alPthose who believe in the 
Lord Jesus Christ. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 261 

But that time has not come ; the great day of 
atonement has not yet arrived, but when it does, 
then will Jesus have finished the work of Mediator, 
and redemption will be complete. He will have 
finished His work as great High Priest in the pres- 
ence of God forever. He will have raised the dead, 
and will sit with all the redeemed in the kingdom of 
God the Father, that He may be all in all. 

I cannot say all I want to on this subject. There 
is something else. I always iike to disappoint a 
man. He said I was not going to say anything 
about this. He asks why are not all saved if the 
atonement is for all. Jesus says for them to come 
to Him that they may have life. It is because they 
will not come to Him. He has said if they ask, He 
will give eternal life. He has become a Mediator 
between God and man and is daily interceding for 
His people, and He hears their prayers, and will 
give them eternal life and Heaven for an inheritance 
to those that believe on Him. He does not ask a 
man that does not desire salvation, to be saved, but 
He has promised to save every one that asks Him — 
every one that believes on Him. If the children of 
men come to Him He will save them. We know 
that Jesus Christ is a sufficiency for every one every- 
where on the face of the earth. No man ever lived 
in any age of the world who was completely recon- 
ciled in the flesh, or in the body. This is not to be 
until Christ shall come the second time on the great 
day of atonement. 



262 DEBATE QN ATONEMENT. 

The great day of atonement was made for Israel 
on the tenth day of the seventh month, when all 
Israel was to be brought together and their sins to 
be atoned for, and this great day was a type of the 
great day of atonement to come. In proof of the 
position I have taken, Jesus Christ is a propitiation 
for our sins, or a propitiation for the sins of the elect 
as Brother Potter has construed it that way. I think 
that is what it means, a propitiation for our sins, those 
that believe on him in all ages of the world. If you 
remember he was arguing about the whole world, and 
wants me to define something that takes in the 
whole world, and if Jesus Christ was the propitiation 
for the sins of the whole world. Jesus Christ has, 
by His death, by His ascension, by His priestly 
office, brought all men into a condition in which 
they might be saved. Will this apply to the whole 
world ? All men were in a lost state, but Jesus has 
redeemed them, brought them, to a state in which 
they might be saved, brought them out of the state 
in which our first representative placed us. 

Christ was our second representative, the same as 
Adam was our first, and placed us in reach of life. 
To become a propitiation for our sins is the same as 
making an atonement ; it is the means by which men 
can have access to God— not only the elect, but it takes 
in the whole world ; it takes in every man or woman 
that ever lived or may live. They may be justified, 
all them that believe in Christ. Therefore, the plan 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 263 

of life and salvation is free to all the children of 
men, every one. 

There is a text we wish to give in connection 
with this to prove and show you that the entire race 
may be saved. We know no man would be happy 
if he was forced to go to Heaven against his will. 

Therefore, I say every one that will come shall be 
saved. If we do not want salvation it will not make 
us happy. Suppose some man should take it into 
his head that he would like for me to stay in a place 
where something intoxicating was sold — a place 
where I do not even like to visit. Well, suppose I 
was made to go there in that kind of a place. I 
would just about as well be in hell. I would be per- 
fectly miserable. I could not stand it. I would not. 
Again suppose*, my friends, you take a man that stays 
in the grocery and sells whiskey and engages in all 
kinds of wickedness that is possible to think of. 
Suppose you take him just as he is and take him to 
Heaven by force. It would not make him happy, 
but just the reverse. He would be miserable. 

Mr. Potter : I call upon the Moderators to call 
Brother Dickey to a point of order. That is new 
argument. I will have no chance to reply to it. 
Mr. Chairman, allow me to say there is no rule of 
honorable controversy that allows a man to intro- 
duce new matter in his last speech on the negative. 
This is a standard rule of controversy, and I think 
it should be observed. I will say, in the first place, 



264 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

the position Brother Dickey is on, nobody believes. 
He may, but I do not know of anybody that does. 
I know I do not, that God would take a man out of 
his wickedness and force him to heaven. 

Then I claim in the first place, I will have no op- 
portunity to reply to that argument. He is trying 
to make people see that God will take sinners to 
Heaven that do not want to go there. I do not be- 
lieve any such stuff. I have said nothing during 
this discussion with my brother, or in preaching that 
I know of, that he should get up here when I have 
no opportunity to reply and talk of something that is 
not in the proposition or connected with it in any 
sense whatever. I claim it is all against the rules 
of honorable controversy. 

Mr. Dickey : I did not intend to introduce new 
argument. I only did this because I wanted to show 
you if you forced a man in his wickedness to go to 
Heaven, you will make him miserable. I did not 
intend to say you believed any such a thing. It 
was not that you said anything in connection with it. 
It was simply a comparison. 

Mr. Potter : All right, then. 

Mr. Dickey : Now, it was simply to illustrate a 
point. It was nothing in regard to what Brother 
Potter said. It was only to show the consequence 
of a man bein£ forced to £0 where he doesn't want 
to go. I was saying that if I am associated with a 
certain class that are very rough and wicked, I 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 265 

would be miserable. I would be out of my place. 
I could not be happy. The same of an individual 
who is a very wicked man ; if he is forced into a 
place of worship, if he is gotten there by force, he 
will be just as miserable as I would be in his place. 
If he was forced to accept the plan laid down in the 
scheme of salvation, he would be out of his place ; 
he would not be happy. Therefore, it is necessary 
for us to have our enmity removed. Man cannot be 
redeemed unless he repents of his own actual trans- 
gressions and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. 

There is a passage of Scripture that says that He 
will save all those that come to Him and those that 
diligently seek Him. 

He is both able and willing to save every man, 
every woman that will come to Him to receive for- 
giveness of sins and have the enmity removed 
from their hearts. Those who come to Him have 
their hearts purified and changed by the Spirit of 
God, and are caused to repent and accept the great 
plan of salvation. 

They who have been living in sin and are led to 
repent, are the ones that are to be reconciled. It is 
the love of Jesus that causes him to repent of his 
sins, to go to the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit 
of God to live up to His divine will by trying to ac- 
complish something for the Lord Jesus Christ. Je- 
sus has made it possible for all men to be saved. 



266 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

Every individual may receive divine grace and 
live it out in his walk. I think during this discus 
sion that I have made it plain, evident, how we were 
placed under the curse of the law by our first repre- 
sentatives, and that Jesus Christ brought us out 
from under the law and placed us in reach of eternal 
life ; they may reach forth their hands and partake 
of the tree of life. In addition to this> it is eternal 
life. I have argued that if Jesus Christ did not die 
for every man, He could not have been resurrected 
for every man. I think this congregation can see 
that. My brother will be compelled to occupy a 
position that will force him to deny that or else say 
that the wicked are never resurrected. 

But I understand on the contrary that Jesus Christ, 
by His death, His resurrection, by all of His works, 
not by one single act, but by all, that He will bring 
forth from the dead everybody that has ever lived on 
the face of the earth, not only a part of the human 
family, but the entire human family. Jesus Christ 
died for the sins of all men, and He will save every 
one that will come to Him. Every one that will trust 
himself in the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ, that 
will give himself to God, He will change his nature 
and bring about a perfect reconciliation. He will 
place him in a condition in which he will be able to 
reach forth and partake of life eternal. I do not 
think he will serve God in a manner acceptable 
when he has his enmity with him. No, he must be- 




DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 267 

lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and come into pos- 
session of the Divine nature. 

This is the condition in which he can serve God 
acceptably; he cannot serve Him thus until his na- 
ture is changed, but as soon as he is changed he is 
enabled to serve Him, and is in a proper condition to 
enter Heaven. He never will be in a proper condi- 
tion to enter Heaven as long as he is in the state of 
sinfulness and condemnation brought upon us in 
consequence of our first representative. He must 
be brought into a better, more purified, or reconciled 
state. We have no possession of these great and 
glorious natures until we are changed. 

The great design of God was that Jesus Christ 
should be a mediator between God and man, and the 
lost and ruined children of men are changed by the 
power and Spirit of God, and I claim that they will 
all be brought forth from the dead. I say I believe 
they will all be resurrected, and that Jesus Christ 
bore the sins of all that are disposed to reach forth 
and partake of the tree of life. He says He will 
give unto them eternal life ; or that those who be- 
lieve in Christ are to be in possession of eternal life, 
to live with the glorified forever, singing the song of 
Moses and the Lamb. I like to present to the chil- 
dren of men the blessings presented to them by their 
Lord Jesus Christ, who has placed them in a condi- 
tion in which they may live with God forever in a 
world where there will be no more sin or iorrow . 



268 DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 

and the time is coming soon when we will meet our 
friends that are passed and gone ; who have crossed 
the river of death, and Jesus Christ our mighty Sav- 
ior, will redeem all those that believe on Him. I 
feel that we are under great obligations to God for 
sending His Son into the world, that we are under 
great obligations to Jesus Christ for coming into the 
world, to be our great redeemer in the plan or 
scheme of salvation, that placed us, the children of 
men of every age, of every nation, of every condition 
in this life, in a condition in which they may be 
saved. Every one that has lived on the face of the 
earth may be taken from this world of sin and sor- 
row by their Lord Jesus Christ, and given a glorious 
.home in Heaven, there to live in perfect bliss forever, 
for Jesus Christ was sent to enable the children of 
mankind to come to Him ; He died that they might 
live. 

Hence, my friends, the great Savior came to bear 
the sins of all, not for any exclusively, for that idea 
makes God only love part of the race. I cannot see, 
like those who claim that atonement is complete. 
If that atonement there was made for sinners, eigh- 
teen hundred years ago, they were not reconciled 
then, who live now, for they had no existence at that 
period of time. According to the doctrine of my 
brother, if I was not reconciled before I had an 
existence, there is no possible chance for my salva- 
tion, no possible chance for me to be redeemed, or 
to even enter Heaven. 



DEBATE ON ATONEMENT. 269' 

I say, when you come to compare the two ideas, 
that have been presented to this congregation, that 
the one that is in harmony with the teachings of 
God's word, excludes nobody from a chance of sal- 
vation. Every one who believes in the Lord Jesus 
Christ — not only the elect — will be permitted to 
enter into Heaven. I say the other portion is all 
wrong. I am sorry to say that any man can deny- 
that the mercy of God is extended to each and every 
one. 

[Time Out.] 



Mr. Potter : — I wish to tender my thanks to this, 
entire congregation, ladies and gentlemen, for the 
good order you have maintained, and for the respect 
you have shown me as an individual in this debate,, 
during the two days we have been together. Our 
acquaintance so far, has been very pleasant to me. 
I wish also to return my thanks to the Brother 
Moderators who have presided during this discussion.. 
I also return my thanks to my worthy opponent. He 
has treated me kindly, and there is nothing but 
kindness existing between us now, so far as I know,, 
at the present. That is all. 

Mr. Dickey : — I wish likewise, brethren, sisters 
and friends, to say that I thank you all for the good 
attention and the respect that you have treated us all. 



270 DEBATE OX ATONEMENT. 

with. I knew you would. I knew this people, and 
I knew you well enough to know that you would 
treat us well, and I tender to you my thanks, and I 
wish to say in connection with Brother Potter, that 
so far as I am concerned, there is no hard feelings 
between us. I think more of him now than I did 
when I came here, also his brethren. As regards 
their doctrine, I do not believe it, but as regards them 
as a people, I believe they are Christians, but then I 
suppose they are like us — do not always do exactly 
as they should — but then I think they are good, 
Christian people. I respect them. I have no hard 
feelings towards any of them whatever. I propose 
now that we have some good song sung, that ail the 
congregation join in singing, and then I would like to 
give my hand to as many of the friends as can con- 
veniently come and give us their hand. I would 
ask them to extend it to each other, and we will 
have a good, old-fashioned hand-shake, and part 
feeling good. I am feeling so myself. 



Then the good old song — u Am I a Soldier of the 
Cross/' — was sung by the congregation, and the 
brethren and friends took the parting hand, in much 



good feeling. 



[The End.] 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





014 226 883 8 4 



